Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 20:21 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 853DC21F9FE3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 nNtaxs17go0j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB31321F9FCB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ut1dB-0004EN-7p for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:20:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:20:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ut1dB-0004EN-7p@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 1Ut1cw-0004B3-2Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:20:10 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1Ut1cv-0000os-FW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 20:20:10 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ey16so1908654wid.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:19:43 -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=SWS52IhG4w6JzGDsCfOw+GZhcF22K51UFyw2RnPhmO4=; b=ywOLVW3pWRSDHO8KDNh1vltsSCcK/1cDy398nyB6PG0FfI0DHXRUIskWEio8oNcS40 gbW/94jiwAdlh6GiZMTwHJSThr/w1vyOXSIBs4nSbFeEUDt0HNQhiag4kePX63eFg06G DyV8H1Z3bSAxUQSVyQW4bv5dWpjMh07luOvYuGvQXhKN8rGXUBCouBOHtV0TemQnBJuB JZbfAFujiyE5raS14aBpkjWTZpYgI5pJPT/Ba8XLOK9aFKmfwypng/l9zUkHP6Le+BX3 mBcPFg0k7z6K/1WiPzjvZN11CP3rg0QELd0T+fpvLIMmqLaLXAuLrFsTNHDAa+WZsJv2 p+uQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.21.141 with SMTP id v13mr7502710wie.10.1372537183250; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7f08ae58cdb4487993d8b0bc290cf264@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <15a394809da64b188945aa51ac0265b4@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABP7RbceLmh4dawBQjqVyF4BeF92sfSSVMXJMjYY+txPh0zGTg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306281749470.22944@egate.xpasc.com> <7f08ae58cdb4487993d8b0bc290cf264@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 13:19:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUo2XXjZdNrWJU7NHLKvqUvr0KHrs00u9wktBReRgMhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.176; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f176.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.699, 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 1Ut1cv-0000os-FW f2f995a1da2710f9bea3382ec071017b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUo2XXjZdNrWJU7NHLKvqUvr0KHrs00u9wktBReRgMhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18427
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 28 June 2013 21:04, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > Not necessary for protocol interoperability, but there are strong reasons > why it ought to be done that way. I agree that there are unpleasant results > if the sequence isn't there -- I just question whether that makes it a > protocol MUST rather than a best practice. I agree with this. I also don't think that it will be possible in some cases to provide this guarantee. In many cases it will be certainly be infeasible.
- HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents Mike Bishop
- Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents James M Snell
- Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents Mike Belshe
- Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents David Morris
- RE: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents Mike Bishop
- Re: HTTP Layer rework and PUSH_PROMISE contents Martin Thomson