Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why are there two ways of associating push with requests? (#3275)

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 27 November 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD279120ABA for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RAmi-sf6T2Tc for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2014B120A79 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:27:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28941C605BE for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:27:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574890031; bh=48X/QHYbwNzEmSV5tQFVpPdANDzatd/YdtxAcb5e8WM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=SZH7c2rtFl5ebFYuMGidkai+ePIJ+Di9VO26IboP36gvsg7/KaGk3Gyos+1swtYAs O4wJAFtZVVc/qeyF0J5KUzXRKlUYFRXfMi1UTNbY9Qf6HxMj+Qp3CLKEKjLp3zjNYO 8l8lb/3v8Lg9/4YxkplgqlF2H+MdzLjwxBQlQ9N0=
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:27:11 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Why are there two ways of associating push with requests? (#3275)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddeea2f17f94_515c3fd9410cd960478f5"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:27:14 -0000

@RyanAtGoogle @LPardue I actually think that sending PUSH_PROMISE with the entire set of request headers *on all request streams that refer to the same push* would be a reasonable approach. The client can then check that the request headers are equivalent.

Doing so also solves HoLB caused by priority inversion (see

I do not anticipate that the there would be many request headers within a push, so sending all the request headers would not be a big concern regarding bandwidth.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: