IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-04: (with COMMENT)

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 02 August 2017 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E01128AA1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xsv7-44P2Qh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF0A3128D86 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1dck8w-00029E-Uy for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:16:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:16:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1dck8w-00029E-Uy@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1dck8m-00028S-AO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:16:08 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1dck8k-0005e1-O7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:16:08 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v723FYr4001412; Wed, 2 Aug 2017 05:15:34 +0200
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 05:15:34 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: 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>
Message-ID: <20170802031534.GB1401@1wt.eu>
References: <150162420981.12086.5309088758303677645.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnWddCp7ZKKMaQdGwNj0yqd0FJ=LcuZTEztEjNgo_hGEkQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWddCp7ZKKMaQdGwNj0yqd0FJ=LcuZTEztEjNgo_hGEkQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.005, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1dck8k-0005e1-O7 16bfef6113f5174ed2629485f31a6b18
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints-04: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20170802031534.GB1401@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/34205
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:31:55AM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 2 August 2017 at 07:50, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > I don't understand this text:
> > "   HTTP/2 ([RFC7540]) server push can be used as a solution to this
> >    issue, but has its own limitations.  The responses that can be pushed
> >    using HTTP/2 are limited to those belonging to the same origin.
> > "
> >
> > Isn't this also a limitation of 103?
> 
> Yes.

Hmmm no, these are hints containing Link header fields, so they can
reference any object including external ones just as if they were
delivered in the final response or in the HTML header.

>  The claim about h2 is also incorrect:
> 
>    The server MUST include a value in the ":authority" pseudo-header
>    field for which the server is authoritative (see Section 10.1).  A
>    client MUST treat a PUSH_PROMISE for which the server is not
>    authoritative as a stream error (Section 5.4.2) of type
>    PROTOCOL_ERROR.
> 
> -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-8.2

Indeed, nice catch! While functionally speaking it's almost the same,
it would be better to place correct claims in the summary :-)

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email