Re: Submitted new I-D: Cache Digests for HTTP/2

[Alcides Viamontes E <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Kazuho, I was not aware of that. It looks like I have some fixing to
do!

Bests,

./Alcides.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Stefan Eissing <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Is PUSHing a HEAD request, unconditional, not what you are looking for?
>
> > Am 10.02.2016 um 02:50 schrieb Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2016-02-09 20:46 GMT+09:00 Alcides Viamontes E <[e-mail]>:
> >>>> Not something that we've implemented yet, but it's a valid scenario.
> >>
> >> Pushing 304 works both in Chrome and Firefox:
> >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2F2m0rSqGCVWFJnTzRWOWFWQmc , we
> have been
> >> doing it for some time.
> >
> > My understanding is that handling of pushed 304 in Chrome and Firefox
> > is unreliable.
> >
> > When sending a push, a server cannot be 100% certain if the client has
> > the resource cached.  In other words, there is always a possibility
> > that the pushed response will be considered as a response to a
> > non-conditional HTTP request on the client side.
> >
> > In other words, browsers that support 304 push should, when matching a
> > pushed 304 response against a HTTP request, check that the request is
> > conditional, and use the pushed response only if the request was
> > conditional (additional checks might be necessary).  Otherwise, the
> > pushed 304 request must be ignored, and the browser should pull the
> > unconditional HTTP request.
> >
> > However, my understanding is that both Chrome (48.0.2564.103) and
> > Firefox (44.0.1) don't do the check; they consider pushed 304
> > responses to be a response to a unconditional HTTP request.
> > Therefore, there is a chance that you would fail to deliver the
> > correct content if you use 304 push today.
> >
> > --
> > Kazuho Oku
> >
>