IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 30 July 2021 23:40 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 307CD3A1720 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:40:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.933 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_24=1.618, 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 CSL6g4Ia15T6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F14C43A171E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github.com (hubbernetes-node-a26a49b.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.201.49]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E8C36520628 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1627688445; bh=DvAmJnpohr7SyReEqSN0S3UIBc8wP1WjUTzPuMGbGxw=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uTtdhg8dE+p1xI0d/+cBjCLHG30cqDBt4pag62kNT/yyf8LSseCQpeIQds9d5kYw5 YvLl9Ks5FuapC+CYbzuIP1RP3vFQ2nYAVdhbLdWp0soE61fpayq1qn+OAOizqmmQzN 6BfC9LnmOgzDF9USo9nqEjyG6IC8LolZzaW1I+HU=
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:40:45 -0700
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZEMUQYTVCPSWIGPE57CBXP3EVBNHHDR4HSDQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/4930/890254570@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_61048dfde679b_11cec7109744c"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/Ze1aFhY2Q9G-Ylken1P-JTWmz30>
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: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 23:40:48 -0000

@MikeBishop Thank you! I think your explanation and the PR are correct.

Push Streams carry the response part of a server push. The lack of the response is indicated by CANCEL_PUSH. We would have the guarantee that either one would be noticed by the client, if we require clients to always read at least up to the Push ID field of a Push Stream. I see that requirement being added by the PR, as a recommendation (SHOULD). That strength seems to be consistent with other requirements that we have.

PUSH_PROMISE sends the request headers of a server push. But unlike the response part, there is no way of signalling the potential lack of. Hence, a timer is needed. I also see that in the PR.

-- 
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-890254570

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email