- From: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:12:32 -0700
- To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ_4DfTKLUs+e6PrNY8Rn0y6YayTVGYKG=kLdNBBKRmRHJX4BQ@mail.gmail.com>
I think that the browser *should* be able to use the pushed resources regardless of the connection that was used to push them. In your example, even though the receipt of the alt-svc header might result in the creation of an h3 connection, the browser *should* still be able to find the h2 pushes. That being said, I believe Chrome does not do this :) On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 5:54 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote: > Based on some observations of how Chrome Canary discovers HTTP/3 and > switches, I've begun wondering how the connection switching behaviour plays > with the way user agents implement server push - particularly around the > concept of "push caches" that may or may not be tied to a connection. > > To use an example consider a document (index.html) that contains some tags > for script1.js, script2.js and script3.js. On first visit, the request > might happen as so > > index.html - requested over TCP+TLS using HTTP/2. Contains Alt-Svc: h3-23 > * script1.js - requested over QUIC and H3 > * script2.js - requested over QUIC and H3 > * script3.js - requested over QUIC and H3 > > Now consider Server Push in this scenario; where requests for index.html > trigger server push for script(1-3).js unconditionally. > > What do people think n the above case when the server sends PUSH_PROMISE, > HEADERS and DATA for scripts on HTTP/2 before sending the HEADERS for > index.html that contains the Alt-Svc. > > If pushed responses are held in a "push cache" tied to the H2 connection, > is there a chance that this is blown away when you change to H3? Or do the > requests for scripts resolve to the push cache and promote to the client > cache proper? Or something totally different unique to each implementation. > > This seems like an undesirable side-effect of our current capabilities and > deployment plans if it indeed an issue. > > Any thoughts from the group? > > Lucas >
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 16:12:49 UTC