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

Ryan Hamilton <> Thu, 09 January 2020 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCC7120830 for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:22:25 -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 QTQ2fYB-qqAS for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5351012003E for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7D31C2F97 for <>; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:22:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578612142; bh=IO1suVKAIgELfZDxA1LUqC3Ft5hfNpmIjTHw4TOskco=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=1ymS7TGOk/3HA7DkiO+oOSG8CZCkFgPY3orfz9/ajZYLr9i6zptilJW955C98zBXX /Ee4/+3OVtKuKaoTLFW0zIzHQedko8TJSIyDyQi5CsxuPSXTENRBz3XSwUl38ZaU+u W8OoSOExeJHAvvYiVP6YW8WNe/4iNHgOrLHsGLn8=
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 15:22:22 -0800
From: Ryan Hamilton <>
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_5e17b5ae60db4_72043fec8f2cd95c4847d"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanAtGoogle
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: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 23:22:25 -0000

@MikeBishop does the current PR text satisfy you or would you like it to explicitly say something about discarding? Here's the current PR text:

If a client receives a Push ID that has already been promised
and detects a mismatch, it MUST respond with a connection error of type
H3_GENERAL_PROTOCOL_ERROR. If the decompressed header sets match exactly, the
client MUST ignore the duplicate PUSH_PROMISE frame.

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