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

Lucas Pardue <> Tue, 03 December 2019 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1611200A1 for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 07:39:15 -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 KCPT8oPtzhmZ for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 07:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD461200DF for <>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 07:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 07:39:13 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1575387553; bh=IPzy1JzWB7I/O/kpZo/YiYECq1xrHm7x2x3QNATfjM0=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=VB8b8ZljRX7SEiqlrMVdn7eByqKMpdc5BUZEyItrR4n09xEpvZKTw0UNsruI21ECp FKIv8knoLig3la/VNdjIj5TJPk2Auh+SZEmuSh5RuUBIXjVzqDDgdSaW5vZyp+HTzk ooXA1h698V+uqRVbeHgmivfRpARdCTAP+in0Wic0=
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_5de681a14947e_34433f850a0cd964111576"; 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 15:39:16 -0000

> Recall that in HTTP/2, the motivating use case for PUSH_PROMISE was the ability to promise more resources than the open stream limit would allow to be pushed. (Consider an image search in which the server wants to push a grid of 100 thumbnails when the open stream limit is 10).

Was that a feature or a bug? By my understanding, we've been attempting to fix that accounting loophole in HTTP/3.

Some of what is being discussed here is a retread of #2559 (in particular

> However, in HTTP/3 this is not the case. The server will be unable to open a new push stream until it receives a new MAX_STREAMS from the client increasing the limit. But that burns an RTT. In which case, there's no point in pushing at all. So to avoid this, a client could increase the MAX_STREAMS to some sort of enormous value. But that does not behave like the HTTP/2 open stream limit.

I don't follow. The HTTP/2 behaviour seems to equate to constrained concurrent requests, and uncontrained pushes. Therefore, setting a sensible value for `MAX_STREAMS bidi` and an enormous value for `MAX_STREAMS uni` seems like what you want. Although I not convinced that is a feature.

> At a minimum we should probably provide advice about how the client should manage MAX_STREAMS and MAX_PUSH_ID

If you're trying to mimic the "push 100 tumbnails without an RTT" behaviour, you'll have to keep in mind the value of initial_max_stream_data_uni too.

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