Re: Server Push, Alt-Svc and connection switching

Ryan Hamilton <> Thu, 17 October 2019 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8378A120A03 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.251
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 65DA64Wbz8sz for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA98D120118 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1iL8OQ-0001LZ-QE for; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:12:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:12:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1iL8OP-0001Ks-A5 for; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:12:49 +0000
Received: from ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1iL8ON-0003QW-J0 for; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:12:49 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id y21so3169256wmi.0 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jaPoQXbW5nwuXxmldfpYnJkeAT0vrViph/HE9O8R5+c=; b=j+U7EDpO04ZHJMY2s2r/j0WV5VggqOhBNWvLPtggiSQU1pN0WpB/DfEGRZsoQI+Ty7 ltCYJpm9d+d0AmY81PiP5xCnqyY3ycgnNwKvBUy8UCW1Wi1qVp6eCX6XGKerFiQAx8DJ z3P8E4PbZDt8ttMSgH6VsWyWTG5VUdUaj3AG7z1OVreKyZo1+RExVA5hDHIEODWci9iJ rP/4Ty0MGUBdi9ynKP67cKe847VOIEgZ3P6RoQyRzy0exCMM/JvSn5odZY1xesokwGqK 0956QISLUyTQYhD86t6dtL9ncpAfIS1CcM1/zfgOw7NR3gCo231ax50nGMYu6F9YDi2L NuMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jaPoQXbW5nwuXxmldfpYnJkeAT0vrViph/HE9O8R5+c=; b=HplXqr3WPCjVLd7GgI7UwKt2sKu3a50KipMywr0I/SfR9MjRQSOQbXev7JsivDAJ0o yxqcfTBXhZ/UD0VXN2nHtDDtbDyQzfB0UmCNEuKVyXIleBppB7yOAwp5UL/Dzy7xgp3Z sC+/2r2UeG9ttbVxNiIL1E7sUSXTxjT3qgAnd0jIHfaRRH0Ibg4rtVmSTOpj6dOygkAe LFT66ImHOXbtv1W3p8vdOZKhTAXU7+MPoMZGJFISF2k6MXoyc2FUWA1jsQuvcnYGb1l9 K2V/6WxJDZDLLUDgMt52FbFaiBQ1NgADMc9E9BlXuhmAi6rrBrG6HBNfDgU1skIZ9utD uh7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+QT+uiZ7xO6A+FgVtszIH3RNn4DT4lEEzN30+q1aqx1L+PdhT VeVuQRk8N2QAfF/93Ou0Fm0FzF4MS5ttEmlFmdMB12r3Qec=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhZlg7utHjHv4c2uokqCGe4GIBqXKmduhV4LeRZT/F0tGEJTXXj5Gtfz3cTnz852bBGAIgmC+ajk/o886iyBE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2489:: with SMTP id 9mr3564792wms.131.1571328764820; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ryan Hamilton <>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 09:12:32 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Lucas Pardue <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dac61105951d7c8f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::32d;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.6
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1iL8ON-0003QW-J0 cdf1d31044dfaa9a43df12556b9c6d24
Subject: Re: Server Push, Alt-Svc and connection switching
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37060
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I think that the browser *should* be able to use the pushed resources
regardless of the connection that was used to push them. In your example,
even though the receipt of the alt-svc header might result in the creation
of an h3 connection, the browser *should* still be able to find the h2

That being said, I believe Chrome does not do this :)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 5:54 PM Lucas Pardue <>;

> Based on some observations of how Chrome Canary discovers HTTP/3 and
> switches, I've begun wondering how the connection switching behaviour plays
> with the way user agents implement server push - particularly around the
> concept of "push caches" that may or may not be tied to a connection.
> To use an example consider a document (index.html) that contains some tags
> for script1.js, script2.js and script3.js. On first visit, the request
> might happen as so
> index.html - requested over TCP+TLS using HTTP/2. Contains Alt-Svc: h3-23
>    * script1.js - requested over QUIC and H3
>    * script2.js - requested over QUIC and H3
>    * script3.js - requested over QUIC and H3
> Now consider Server Push in this scenario; where requests for index.html
> trigger server push for script(1-3).js unconditionally.
> What do people think n the above case when the server sends PUSH_PROMISE,
> HEADERS and DATA for scripts on HTTP/2 before sending the HEADERS for
> index.html that contains the Alt-Svc.
> If pushed responses are held in a "push cache" tied to the H2 connection,
> is there a chance that this is blown away when you change to H3? Or do the
> requests for scripts resolve to the push cache and promote to the client
> cache proper? Or something totally different unique to each implementation.
> This seems like an undesirable side-effect of our current capabilities and
> deployment plans if it indeed an issue.
> Any thoughts from the group?
> Lucas