- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:27:05 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:08:59PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 4 August 2017 at 14:01, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > Hi Kazuho, > > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:49:13PM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote: > >> Eric, Martin, Willy, thank you for your suggestions. > >> > >> I agree that the original text was incorrect in the limitation of what > >> can be pushed, and also that the text was confusing. > >> > >> I've filed a PR (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/375) > >> that tries to address the issue, based on Martin's suggestions (thank > >> you for the text!). > >> > >> Please let me know what you think. > > > > I'd reformulate this part : > > > > "especially if a client is associated with a large amount of cache storage." > > > > more like this : > > > > "especially if for clients equipped with caching." > > > > Otherwise it makes one think that Link header consumes a large amount of > > space while it's 1) not true and 2) only a hint so it solely depends on > > what the client does. > > I think that Willy's suggestion is good. I'm also not sure about "and > consumes less bandwidth", which is only true in the case where the > client doesn't want the resource. Let's use "and may consume less bandwith", which is true when it can retrieve the objects from a cache :-) willy
Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 04:27:34 UTC