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

Kazuho Oku <> Wed, 27 November 2019 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154CD12007C for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:41:14 -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 IugkgSk2m7nK for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7944F120018 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5455204F5 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:41:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574887271; bh=humpX31piS8TJsJ9B90DgKlwQxsShGa7OODcjMk9uxQ=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=pXmpGR8gZ9tOA6hnVQ4Fa177MhRCOh2lCIqKqJGWC7Vl8iZ8SqhYjykXH3aa4pjZC FPfoxKiYKX3xJVWZ7gbWXGLZJfYKwecTUy1PpfAd+yE7by9eacAfv3XHn7lsYG6HWx OhZ7lMskj4wct8tsYirO7QARAB2tjuDQtvjT5vhc=
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:41:11 -0800
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_5ddedf679be06_6d113fc9082cd95c134ae"; 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, 27 Nov 2019 20:41:14 -0000

> I think we need a guarantee that if the server is pushing a URL, the client knows about it before it makes a request for that resource.

My point is that there is already no such guarantee. A client might receive a DUPLICATE_PUSH with an yet unknown PUSH_ID. In such case, the client cannot tell the URL being pushed.

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