Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove DUPLICATE_PUSH and allow duplicate PUSH_PROMISE (#3309)

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 08 January 2020 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6C8120180 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:46:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.595
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.595 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 2_rBkhJ86YH0 for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B24612001A for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651FA9605DC for <>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 07:45:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578498359; bh=qIYosYgz7JOf3tJIp24FbFHYFrieg7GmKCZRHHP+wKY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=cXijnhuewE5kiQc2JosiCEboMWLav5SXKUTiHtPh2SIWyOCmWmPjnZiQeCEQejvtR u7QFLIaR7uBTgeVeovCZdYOR3Mr51kILcApECH6i0NFNgEmgC1SN1uhB+9k01VAzhO hrE3F0suWiUgFbPLD6nLSfFZBETe8ep6SKwp20mE=
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:45:59 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3309/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Remove DUPLICATE_PUSH and allow duplicate PUSH_PROMISE (#3309)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5e15f93753e12_7d343fb02dccd964119682"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
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 15:46:02 -0000

This is looking good now. However, the deletion of the DUPLICATE_PUSH prose removes some of the description of why a server might choose to do this. 

I think we should incorporate some of that text, or go look further back to how the PUSH_PROMISE section was written before DUPLICATE_PUSH -

For example

   Allowing duplicate references to the same Push ID is primarily to
   reduce duplication caused by concurrent requests.  A server SHOULD
   avoid reusing a Push ID over a long period.  Clients are likely to
   consume server push responses and not retain them for reuse over
   time.  Clients that see a PUSH_PROMISE that uses a Push ID that they
   have since consumed and discarded are forced to ignore the

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