IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of a lost push signal (#4930)

Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com> Thu, 29 July 2021 13:48 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 C8A343A236B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.005
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.005 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 R4hUJWWqeCXL for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E903A2369 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-09fd6b2.va3-iad.github.net [10.48.114.19]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B4E345C0371 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1627566532; bh=p4y7XRoTVHyQGHRqpyfj8yZ/I/OQMu59pi9cnd+xjI4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KBNKF4xKRZJxuf55c9pXx639JOGk4pdKeSVQJThd6XoJBLAYT90tAo7/L/PK/EGOP c2zgxcyD+bKkJrM8DgznF5epIQsbofB6o/SH3VAhek535XSnS2osIv0rTI8kq4gNTP iNJ7OLLxwsMzax64aM2lIufpvDpagh5vGs63+Fbw=
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:48:52 -0700
From: Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2LNYRUVBI7FFMWE2N7B2JMJEVBNHHDR4HSDQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4930/889159906@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4930@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4930@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Handling of a lost push signal (#4930)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_6102b1c4b2481_20ffc7243216a"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanTheOptimist
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/MatCIl_yio9gVYKKNsX5JVshSnc>
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: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:48:56 -0000

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 1:31 AM Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <
***@***.***> wrote:

> Yet another option is drop server push from draft entirely. Leave it to a
> future extension draft with a concrete mitigation.
>
I strongly support this proposal. We are quite late in the process to be
rethinking how push works, and as a consequence are unlikely to have
significant deployment experience with whatever new design we come up with.
As a result, I think we are unlikely to have a deep understanding of the
performance implications in time. I think it would be wise to punt this to
an extension.

Cheers,

Ryan

>


-- 
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/4930#issuecomment-889159906

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email