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

Mike Bishop <> Wed, 08 January 2020 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B73871208A0 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:47:20 -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 2lU-Sty5ESJY for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F04FA1201EA for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 08:47:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578502038; bh=HHyIcWWlVkVEZ3IFzbe2fB7dQqewEBtQm9Il6hXZPQs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=numdZBuf6MVUXrmJBwdFeYCDkq1HrPhh4c6gJJPLIdx6XCaLC66G60qoqzcCnECYX U+Uo09KnDiSTpndxOFIKMAOJk8QQN6+pn1nSvsiCpB80mGGeGuA1Rok7lT5K3aJzCv BJpjkmV9je7E5OrHqQLuHo8u/IhLyQKn+u4LksuQ=
From: Mike Bishop <>
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_5e160795e7713_22cf3f89440cd96c131711"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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, 08 Jan 2020 16:47:21 -0000

@martinthomson advocated that if they're required to be the same, then a server that's violating that deserves any unexpected behavior they uncover on clients.  That makes me slightly nervous, because that way lies servers depending on particular client behavior in bizarre situations.  I still lean toward "SHOULD either check or discard; MUST error if detected" to guard against that, but I agree it's not critical for protocol compatibility that the client validate.

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