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

Ryan Hamilton <> Wed, 27 November 2019 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797C0120127 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:04:30 -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 LPOifUbvqdBV for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF48A120A96 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:04:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C786E0167 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:04:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574888668; bh=RSNhvoxQBOsWkspkU4MqK+PJbspTiuWCaoTdGQe+tnk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=zT7gJ4elcINjI+OHRboeR2e/eshixkio9lggJpREguowlS4YQEV4rHKh5iZY9wHnV k2mH7/jgC+KtUAhxNp/GWqIUztLvXNMZUPEsAdcq8XTAFKWvAJ2AGW7tYA7H7wbFfN 8AM8FB7favF1rOI3TVVtVrGlune6MVuLqHQIbYL8=
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:04:28 -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_5ddee4dc20811_55c93fe21eccd964372da"; 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: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:04:31 -0000

@kazuho Indeed! This is a problem for the DUPLICATE_PUSH case, but not a problem in the simple PUSH_PROMISE case. I don't like the idea of extending this problem. (And I really hate that this is a problem with DUPLICATE_PUSH at all :>).

I wonder if an alternative might be to change DUPLICATE_PUSH to include the URL of the resource being promised? (This won't be the full request headers, but at least it would include the URL).

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