Re: Experiences with HTTP/2 server push

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Mon, 15 August 2016 02:12 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DDA12D626 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:12:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.167
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Errn9bqMDR2G for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:12:38 -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 AF72C12D5DE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bZ7Jz-0005fN-9V for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 02:08:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 02:08:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bZ7Jz-0005fN-9V@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 <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1bZ7Jt-0005eg-IC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 02:08:05 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1bZ7Jo-0003S1-VM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 02:08:03 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id u186so28847079ita.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=/XuSqzy7wF8urFcR2+iRLhn0xt4Fayb9ubVAEH5mpRo=; b=Bd14oSjZCAoT6ab7/Vl54zWkVRUM9WuFPRAU/Ug9r496hEGv4ldcTRZ70OTYf2kYJf 7928wIlTY29mgV4/SPZ02hOhMvSmyoKNwOcjyYERqcb2mXH76RiJSIdpI2Hc4pAk0gbj m0m1wLIraQU7Md3KnQFGmqg6y7D3KthcFgO1t8oDEBqMnzP+03LzmRCD7CqOe+pmwN7C sbD8JrKX9afhkJyoAyhsK6vXTZ7enAjMNHAAASd8Qpv6+n3oFwoiNu+iCcZrXaof4hk5 3gqlDr/POF0hSLJuxbvOiItjAemfusJdmuztmtMCq/yAD53EbqcfyclCJLzljwywlvi4 L5UA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/XuSqzy7wF8urFcR2+iRLhn0xt4Fayb9ubVAEH5mpRo=; b=HRDBsJiJ9rPThiZsMzSsCAkQ++0MSUU9wfhVVJH8zdrTtd1Ld08TxBW1ZAmNosAEyh LXkF/ULklDC1xt/xDCffrReXpU/Th2RjJ1xgpU69IEHDvlA+IfDp+4gnERkf6tTjC+PI VtMmulrLh7M3tETMocIZDJ27AlXtj7jDZywNwd9GAT+iCWHnYbAYT7VUmM13YiZiOP/a 0wyY9vpDzhpcMGC78tDI6YSK+xhHEzf/ovwJ1FgWLFcwgurD+Stex6yZkEpjXDpzD35q 6Bf5b3VJ1aWfQR/ypW8dP2Ytprqu5xtvxatt2u782xwHXBWvf4Sy0PJnVYrGCGi4cSl/ K9Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutFpo02RCFLlk1Re3VGflv5CYM/ChS8nGcwOZ5h0v3qjmDWWQvlH9nXpt7WYwoyXU+c3BSqfuyDJ6/V5Q==
X-Received: by 10.36.123.139 with SMTP id q133mr11302935itc.10.1471226854913; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.158.207 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXGtECfidLrgPH_ggVOOs0YitTKKQaMAw-Fe7BJzBM_gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACZw55mUg_VjN3Q6TqPCb6udo3mQpoWQVNV5e2iYiNj=hC-2kw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX=6ZjnFJsh-07SDt+LMprsJ9w7tgSjaeaMKeEgihsD4g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+3+x5FpRGm9XQz2PdvFs6Kfiz3eMH1QLJ0fAeaeqQOSF2c9sw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWCm4gJ7fg3b8Ud=oBq5xYosoy3q=F3Tn_ChsXE4wHXaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyWWjSzMmotoE3vbZubHPkafrQnL0vyNbvNBwierc_9iA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXGtECfidLrgPH_ggVOOs0YitTKKQaMAw-Fe7BJzBM_gw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:07:34 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7RxssLPfQTl8P-pPLQ_tnglGe44
Message-ID: <CACweHND9=ANYb3S72wzuKM7NuOEEAy4xHMFFwmk-DMV92T9-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147584c123ed4053a12b201"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.44; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-it0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.786, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bZ7Jo-0003S1-VM 8fa667dad829386f013b7d333857ad4f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Experiences with HTTP/2 server push
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHND9=ANYb3S72wzuKM7NuOEEAy4xHMFFwmk-DMV92T9-EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32269
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 15 August 2016 at 11:14, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 August 2016 at 07:15, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OTOH let me note that a server can also send priority information as
> > part of a PUSH_PROMISE frame. This way, the priority tree does not get
> > ruined.
>
> I don't think that makes sense.  If the client processes the
> PUSH_PROMISE and immediately reprioritizes the push, then the PRIORITY
> frame that appears afterwards will be exactly as meaningless or
> destructive as anything else.
>
>
‚ÄčI think the key here is "part of"... unlike HEADERS, PUSH_PROMISE doesn't
have priority fields. If it did, this would be true. I'm still not sure
what it would mean, though.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/