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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 08 January 2020 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8A8120086 for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 17:31:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 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_20=1.546, 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 GBl1Ti1b7RX6 for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 17:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A32F112007C for <>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 17:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 17:31:39 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1578447099; bh=a/eVXJL4Tc9kn9Ro/G+NU+ahboo8svwDC7xAIsBs7tY=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=EVhxGG6hybd8KDRJ4JIB3PWEXLYxHQNpB1lblTJaU9gMjvdexc3YRqFZABuNQSPdx 7IaeBq41auMmxA8DYNytxQoiDUXZHKu5HZHqIumiiWM9gXh45lpc6LRZVKpwg5o/Lr 1sSYjKVfu/EQkHIItZZ1wEkrVHA2/hfXO5BQSVck=
From: Kazuho Oku <>
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_5e1530fbe4818_6a003f8a87ecd96094170"; 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
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 01:31:42 -0000

I'm also fine with current PR.

"MUST error if detecting a mismatch" works for me. While it would not be that difficult to implement  "MUST detect mismatch or ignore PUSH_PROMISE" rule, it is a different question if we need to enforce that as a protocol specification.

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