Re: Questions on Server Push
Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> Tue, 04 June 2013 02:03 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 0EC3A11E80B8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53rkVHCW5z18 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B41C21E80F2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ujf3A-00051d-Nu for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:24:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:24:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ujf3A-00051d-Nu@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1Ujf2x-0004zp-Pi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:24:19 +0000
Received: from mo00.iij.ad.jp ([202.232.30.145] helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>) id 1Ujf2w-0005vH-1G for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:24:19 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iij.ad.jp; h=Message-ID: Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; i=ohtsu@iij.ad.jp; s=omgo1; t=1370305434; x= 1371515034; bh=S5fOjtTL0rOQoe4xXTz4RZ00NthZ6bJc6+sAqZF641Q=; b=eEEtAvDMqYY4ABzB xFUCW0R8d+2PG9QuKFALQAtpn7DSRIwwWRCKPoptsXDjAU3OoMrRR7a5p8u90JKoXPR1tw5rMLDrW 0bWC6xAyA7+/wcmreo/Pa5QGvsdAy8VYdHuhYqXBky9UxMTa1lDysyxs525vKcdXYdrt657e8xPws Q=;
Received: by omgo.iij.ad.jp (mo00) id r540NspV020281; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 09:23:54 +0900
Message-ID: <51AD3398.80108@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:23:52 +0900
From: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51A87484.4090501@iij.ad.jp> <CABkgnnWPuTp41vYDCbbs+PdDOFc7hCVmNzLJq8CsmHe4Jc-8dQ@mail.gmail.com> <51AD2E8B.4050102@iij.ad.jp> <CABkgnnV_kANMOc34GLH=BQOncOojbBug5SDE_HGY6igLA+WZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV_kANMOc34GLH=BQOncOojbBug5SDE_HGY6igLA+WZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=202.232.30.145; envelope-from=ohtsu@iij.ad.jp; helo=omgo.iij.ad.jp
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.244, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.511, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ujf2w-0005vH-1G b1788791e40989ab5fcc5fb41f3a07fd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Server Push
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51AD3398.80108@iij.ad.jp>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18162
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>
(2013/06/04 9:07), Martin Thomson wrote: > On 3 June 2013 17:02, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote: >> then PUSH_PROMISE on step2 seemed to be sent from server on the >> half-closed stream 1. Do we need to change the spec so as to permit >> to send PUSH_PROMISE on a half-closed stream? > > Half-closed is directional. You can't send on a stream that is > half-closed in the direction you are sending, but you can send on the > open half. If it weren't directional, the server couldn't send a > response. Oh, I understood. I thought "a half-closed stream" means the state of stream where either endpoint has already sent the FINAL. The spec means that "A server cannot send a PUSH_PROMISE on a new stream or a half-closed stream (on which FINAL has already sent from the server)." Thanks.
- Questions on Server Push Shigeki Ohtsu
- Re: Questions on Server Push Martin Thomson
- Re: Questions on Server Push Martin Thomson
- RE: Questions on Server Push Mike Bishop
- Re: Questions on Server Push Shigeki Ohtsu
- Re: Questions on Server Push Shigeki Ohtsu
- Re: Questions on Server Push Shigeki Ohtsu