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

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 04 December 2019 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3351120813 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:05:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 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_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 CyTKu2yeO9R2 for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960D812012E for <>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 06:05:46 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1575468346; bh=/j/mGarmicqTrjwXK856KxOp6Wie+4J/wfzeFo8qSmU=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DS4b8aZNx+Alz26tVDksGbM8K1OVTvunrBv3s2x3b0hu1+/UTpuUnYa8zSl0PAmDF 99MC7MgEf28OlCJEFzwyN7YHgdoJ2F4q2CjYowOTH80ChUjiuYp4g0ENKPNdHkkLdE pf5zaDoja5cLXE/nJ0SKyOCZwmykfwgaGm7Fs1j4=
From: Lucas Pardue <>
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_5de7bd3a8e2bb_1b863f9702ecd9603799d1"; 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, 04 Dec 2019 14:05:49 -0000

> I'd suggest removing DUPLICATE_PUSH and allowing duplicate PUSH_PROMISE frames on different response streams.
> DUPLICATE_PUSH saves a few bytes over an equivalent PUSH_PROMISE, but I believe has no value.

What we have now addresses a specific concern raised on #1864 about how to handle multiple PUSH_PROMISES with the same ID. Mike suggested some points that could be address on that ticket if we continued to allow multiple PUSH_PROMISE:

>     * Maintains a list of active promises for which it is still willing to accept an additional reference to the promise, including the uncompressed headers for the promise (likely until the promise is fulfilled, possibly plus a timeout)
>     * Verifies that the headers match exactly when receiving an additional reference to one of these promises; MUST error if they don't.
>     * If a promise is received for an ID which has already been flushed from the list, the promise is ignored

A PR that proposes removing DUPLICATE_PUSH should address the above.

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