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

Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com> Wed, 27 November 2019 13:54 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D09120123 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:54:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 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_32=0.001, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZOMhCju5Q0p for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:54:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C72E120122 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:54:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-275fa97.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.17.64]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89FD961A64 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:54:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1574862878; bh=6NIC8aclJBF3lOrYBth/l0tN9AfGddUTRcPtqIVh97s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=szGnNBmS5XcIEKEGYhtUnMAoAq9YFDdQwb86weQxzy0KAAciokPxLu003fYFNEVWK YHxez8+aFQXt56Srsg2GWz4fzNoAJsqY9WBit22y/ZquXUgsAfkvN73QaSUaK3QCBS 5474U7hDRxZjGQBVJOlHvY612rSkPPhqGvNq4/ro=
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:54:38 -0800
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5YW67FF7AEM37DCBV35OZJ5EVBNHHB7DC6LI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275/559096810@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
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_5dde801ea8fe1_67ad3f837b6cd96c3660aa"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: dtikhonov
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/Eggx1k4LaFIjcHAtIbgvNoeLudc>
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:54:41 -0000

Having implemented DUPLICATE_PUSH on the server, I say that the complexity is increased compared with gQUIC or HTTP/2, but it's not too bad.

On the client side, the biggest problem I haven't yet solved is that push promise, when received, might not have a stream associated with it.  At that point, the user code cannot be given a push promise stream to process or refuse the push promise.  This can be solved in a few ways:
- delay informing the user that push promise has arrived until the push stream gets created;
- create a stream but delay assigning stream ID to it (and disable some stream functionality); or
- create a different API for HTTP/3 push promises.

I haven't made up my mind about which of these I dislike the least.

@kazuho's proposal would solve this problem on the client and so I agree with his argumentation regarding client complexity.  Nevertheless, the current design must have some rationale behind it, which I expect @MikeBishop to share with us on this thread.

We should also keep in mind that the HTTP draft entered Late Stage yesterday.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275#issuecomment-559096810