[quicwg/base-drafts] Issue when a server cancels a push stream (#3698)

Dragana Damjanovic <notifications@github.com> Tue, 26 May 2020 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B4E93A0F1D for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.555
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.555 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, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWkEWZhPlK_d for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-28.smtp.github.com (out-28.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28F5C3A0F6C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-45eca55.ac4-iad.github.net []) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27C78C0F43 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2020 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1590501777; bh=MAFz3Yqc6ARSnghWHslUajLG0Q62zjSQLfSglfRpuow=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aBjr2O9Pf65uegTDcSSvWrfeWXatabQn0WqTSh3CNkCw15G+YwpKkym/cWagxIaqy s4A3V8jcIdyPA1Z62wX6fmV0gAdwSe2NQ3G5fTLKZv2PSxwlVtenElgi4w5OkJslrd 7otEQhc4hreJmT/rhSv7J4HLoNwqRBO0Abq6q93M=
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 07:02:57 -0700
From: Dragana Damjanovic <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZGDL7DRH7I2JIBIGN43EBJDEVBNHHCKP2YWE@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3698@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Issue when a server cancels a push stream (#3698)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ecd2191a3880_324b3fa0f3acd964181316"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ddragana
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/8RtujRaNyBo0VQOzygFPJnIHgCU>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:03:05 -0000

The spec suggest that a server should send a CANCEL_PUSH to notify a client that it will not fulfill a PUSH_PROMISE. The server should send CANCEL_PUSH before a push stream has been open.

The server still can cancel a push stream after it has been created and that will have a similar effect as a CANCEL_PUSH frame. There is a small problem with that. If the server resets a push stream before client starts reading, the client may have not read the push_id from the stream and that push_id will never be fulfill or cancel for the client point of view.
Should there be a sentence in the spec explaining this? Probably suggesting not to cancel a push stream until server is certain that client has read it, which is difficult.
Should the spec suggest ot send CANCEL_PUSH even after a push stream has been created? 

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