IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Questions on Server Push

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 04 June 2013 00:35 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 E725C21F96E1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.700, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 5BjLNhiOd9DY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9C621E80CE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ujenp-0006A7-Be for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:08:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:08:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ujenp-0006A7-Be@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1Ujend-000699-HZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:08:29 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UjenY-0005MA-U9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:08:29 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id n12so3894554wgh.24 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2IlX1zwbwpNDaLbhyAadpN2nJzXgedM2V6DClXG+3rQ=; b=JlIpqVsfgZ6vhnupVa7XPdmLdJTl72YMKGG5vEEIqpdhpibR3n/PBFgmeWgpr0/Jkw GzpnZ5OpmL5r2GCxES4EllF/LP+EA3m6KeRJVGHVdkV1fglLO8C8f3s3EQK/EAmr562C MpiQ+P6YeAHV3D1tTG0IBtCjy9AF8s4uWj/QnUyvEDK03Yqa8flfnIPKLuBGxwT/FjZd HerTxQ8g5kDkkvwRfUzdJhZIzkn7QK6ICt9Z0dtYUXvEPFcuW6wEDIjInjBHCEOH5LBt G1jxiBFJC0rmJQIOSJ50JCCbUYtxrQIwOO8OeUoLQFGYkH7xrU97a556JHalj1p2fuin 00sw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.174.137 with SMTP id bs9mr20261246wjc.59.1370304478822; Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.250.10 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51AD2E8B.4050102@iij.ad.jp>
References: <51A87484.4090501@iij.ad.jp> <CABkgnnWPuTp41vYDCbbs+PdDOFc7hCVmNzLJq8CsmHe4Jc-8dQ@mail.gmail.com> <51AD2E8B.4050102@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:07:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV_kANMOc34GLH=BQOncOojbBug5SDE_HGY6igLA+WZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.45; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.727, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UjenY-0005MA-U9 2915a61d647fd50b1c4551b9e61a2017
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Server Push
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnV_kANMOc34GLH=BQOncOojbBug5SDE_HGY6igLA+WZ9A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18160
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 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.

> We would be glad if you add some notes about this after
> "After sending a PUSH_PROMISE, the server commences transmission of a pushed
> resource."
> in 4.3.1.

Yes, this text isn't completely correct.  It may commence
transmission, but it can wait before starting.

> It might be also related to the description to be written about the stream
> lifecycles
> as noted on http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#rfc.comment.5

Stream lifecycles are still a work in progress.  If you have any
specific suggestions, that would be helpful, but at this stage, I'm
not sure that we have a good agreement on what the basics are.
Anything that we "fix" now will probably change later.

--Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email