- From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:30:33 +0900
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@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>
2017-08-04 13:27 GMT+09:00 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>: > 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 :-) Martin, Willy, Thank you for your suggestions. Updated the text to "might consume less bandwidth" to avoid confusion (and to avoid lower-case "may"). > willy -- Kazuho Oku
Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 04:30:56 UTC