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

ianswett <> Wed, 04 December 2019 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C6012012E for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:54:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 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_24=1.618, 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 6gzSP3G3pfkP for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5FE71200FE for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEB64960695 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 05:54:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1575467662; bh=SgVriIFgqmLxONx/GG1Iv24Okse26rY9Juob5t90DnE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=lwcHOgf83pYZ37vQYdv86U9nKJl54eTT22ImY1dfALzJfv0zY+SB8+SAWGiEzWgUC 4WM+ALwdIYlOOBbXsLaZD6I7zLUzi9FKbtUJumIG0oeD0RWkyu4Pksa95IYyjUimID T3oAJWJBb6rW6ECsm3tD2xLYRENoYKsgveFixTfY=
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 05:54:22 -0800
From: ianswett <>
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_5de7ba8ebfdcd_246d3ff23cacd9603656cf"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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, 04 Dec 2019 13:54:25 -0000

I'd suggest removing DUPLICATE_PUSH and allowing duplicate PUSH_PROMISE frames on different response streams.  I'd be hesitant to make larger changes at this point and I think Push IDs are an improvement over HTTP/2.

DUPLICATE_PUSH saves a few bytes over an equivalent PUSH_PROMISE, but I believe has no value.  Think of the two cases:
1) No loss or reordering, the client has already received the PUSH_PROMISE.  DUPLICATE_PUSH should not change the client response.
2) DUPLICATE_PUSH arrives before PUSH_PROMISE.  But the client doesn't know what was pushed.  It has the choice of indefinitely delaying all requests on the page, which is almost certainly a performance degradation in most cases or ignoring it.

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