IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-benfield-http2-p2p-00.txt

Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> Tue, 21 July 2015 12:57 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0579F1A9048 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:57:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 FOXfEdF7STDT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D691A9149 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 05:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZHX4K-00043b-Vb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZHX4K-00043b-Vb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1ZHX4G-00042l-FA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:44 +0000
Received: from emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi ([62.142.5.116]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>) id 1ZHX4E-0001bD-1I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:54:43 +0000
Received: from LK-Perkele-VII (a91-155-194-207.elisa-laajakaista.fi [91.155.194.207]) by emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD2169AAB; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:54:17 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:54:17 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20150721125417.GA21581@LK-Perkele-VII>
References: <20150720154654.4782.23539.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E129FA4F-D9A5-423F-9AF1-BFA8E2B475D4@lukasa.co.uk> <20150720164111.GA4353@LK-Perkele-VII> <91F58AAC-FEBA-44AB-AC9B-D6C785A947FC@lukasa.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <91F58AAC-FEBA-44AB-AC9B-D6C785A947FC@lukasa.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.142.5.116; envelope-from=ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi; helo=emh06.mail.saunalahti.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZHX4E-0001bD-1I 8005fe0ead8b8378625f950d2ae4518c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-benfield-http2-p2p-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150721125417.GA21581@LK-Perkele-VII>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30014
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 Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 01:48:13PM +0100, Cory Benfield wrote:
> > On 20 Jul 2015, at 17:41, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the feedback Ilari! It’s much appreciated
> 
> > The seemingly only reason server-side SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER
> > is if client wants to wait for acknowledge of server support
> > before sending its CLIENT_AUTHORITY frames. But omitting that
> > wait would just cause the CLIENT_AUTHORITY frames to be harmlessly
> > ignored.
> 
> That’s not the reason. The reason the server would emit SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER
> is to indicate that it’s willing to accept PUSH_PROMISE frames sent from the
> client. Note that this spec forbids the client from pushing streams without
> that setting being sent by the server.

Can't server just set SETTINGS_PUSH_PROMISE to 1 after obtaining
SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER 1 from client? And SETTINGS_PEER_TO_PEER 1
from client would mean that the server MAY do that?


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email