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

Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com> Fri, 20 December 2019 16:07 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 60254120128 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:07:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 6wANtoIPcT8S for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:07:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-20.smtp.github.com (out-20.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ACBC12012E for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-fb56993.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.19.31]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D4C8C0E23 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:07:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1576858061; bh=020yyQlkD/K6qJgvDMtPPzoPdwpv9fKLFcr2oL+RiG8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IOtGwY4FB7FL8XNwcdhd42DD9dM/4yS4XoYDJqx57bzVS/OJPWXy5tF/EZfrWcJc0 w6mV+khVy8GvkF1rJ1QLI0x0q9Ie7qPLQTHR3KkRNXrQoMSnXDcSR0aNNR+JlLWzLc EUN09i2crxrh6xV2W5OqvTtXo8AcP0HqEA/b8rBU=
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:07:41 -0800
From: Ryan Hamilton <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK3OXTYPHFUQRM5EUWN4BISE3EVBNHHB7DC6LI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275/567977291@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275@github.com>
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_5dfcf1cd440ce_20a63faf1facd95c163545b"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: RyanAtGoogle
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/nOu6DBVcEZfX_ZSCT5cD1rJZqRo>
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, 20 Dec 2019 16:07:47 -0000

Not sure if I'm doing Gituhub right, but I just cooked up a PR to remove DUPLICATE_PUSH and permit duplicate PUSH_PROMISE frames which must contain the same headers.

-- 
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/3275#issuecomment-567977291