Re: Early Hints (103)

Stefan Eissing <> Wed, 23 November 2016 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AFF128E19 for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=obBFkle8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=MibEuibT
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JlaMtjt2u_7H for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:12:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE241299ED for <>; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 10:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9bxd-0004WG-EL for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:07:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:07:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9bxY-0004Ud-6a for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:07:52 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1c9bxR-0008Ix-Ty for; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:07:47 +0000
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 117) id 71F2D15A040C; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:07:18 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1479924438; bh=CP7H9gO7iLqUMQfDKJdNp8s8Kaf9ebmqT9/SyzTwjeI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=obBFkle8FlLOGVX1sTZGgbguKJ8IWKgJWrUt3g0LLRX7YbWIu0TYIcwfn+zHe90QC g66/go2lDy/myMq5H30Z4T6zs92pGZYwOWRotFuicRSEoTE2sMrdyngIdXEjTAx0t6 ksXqG7jGHT+mBTh1FkuHA9rw0EiksXZxYGgUlFWk=
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2BBA15A040C; Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:07:17 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1479924437; bh=CP7H9gO7iLqUMQfDKJdNp8s8Kaf9ebmqT9/SyzTwjeI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=MibEuibTrSApRy5ZugxmC1T71XdOf37aLY8/bZKKmLKDumVj5nU0D41AxxFyv5Vio nZKCybZQ85VqagyF8rYc3zHo16caPQWqIlJUKILGRmbxYaepasbtJPNU/drYQa07BN TrWBr/p8tMlsz9gQkZZ3xdvvti1U1KwHlqbFUpDE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Stefan Eissing <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:07:17 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: McManus Patrick <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.897, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1c9bxR-0008Ix-Ty e1703eedad21f7fe4a54a59475229035
Subject: Re: Early Hints (103)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32973
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

> Am 23.11.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Stefan Eissing <>:
> Thanks Patrick,
>> Am 22.11.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Patrick McManus <>:
>> Dear Gentlefolk of HTTPbis,
>> This is a followup to Kazuho's presentation in Seoul[*] where he discussed
>> The idea seemed to have acceptance (both in the room and on the list) with some concerns expressed about interoperability. Kazuho was kind enough to publish an endpoint so you can test if the client you implement has an unexpected failure in the face of 103.
>> However, the draft was published pretty close to meeting time and there wasn't much space for discussion in the room. So before we do a Call For Adoption, I would like to hear some more discussion so the chairs can be confident there is interest - even if that discussion is "I would like to implement that" or "what does that accomplish?". Please do chime in, your silence will be taken for disinterest otherwise :).
> I have released support for 103 in mod_http2 in the standalone github v1.8.0 and plan to include same code in the next Apache httpd release (mod_http2 being an experimental part makes that easy). 103 is, so far, only used over HTTP/2 connections there. I am waiting for some consensus to arrive on how to make best use of it over HTTP/1.1 (other than proprietary tweaks in reverse proxy/backend setups), if at all.
> 103 allows signalling of PUSH options by the backend way earlier than before (in connection time) and its implementation is very straightforward.
> -Stefan

Not to be mistaken, 103 on HTTP/2 connections will be disabled by default, as some html-rendering clients report ERR_SPDY_PROTOCOL_ERROR...