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

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 27 November 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA9512009C for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.596 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_28=1.404, 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 KXw4Z8jKiHVz for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D6612013D for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:04 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1574865604; bh=qSbIEJUzqcZoSd5XuKZQJDlb43UjzGLuGd34ENGZZE8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=DQm0xZBtV+njOVkdNfhVhvdNMPclyi5yRUPOT2a3a1MlUrNWGG8XyhcQVKis1oJhD 6x9AEAuVhW8I0SikNsXIum74V0ueZKGIRwTDfzxSnOPjCebAvJvs2gXdp1RKO0rgVw nH5IKpfFg/WT4cM3Ulg+xvBNyyaDNla6NuBl4R6g=
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_5dde8ac48ab71_2da33fb9b1ecd95c5171d"; 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, 27 Nov 2019 14:40:09 -0000

> On the client side, the biggest problem I haven't yet solved is that push promise, when received, might not have a stream associated with it. At that point, the user code cannot be given a push promise stream to process or refuse the push promise.

Caveat that I have only a very naive API for client-side push handling. I thought one purpose of the current design was to allow the proactive cancellation of pushes before the server committed stream resources, via CANCEL_PUSH.

@kazuho's proposal makes CANCEL_PUSH pretty worthless for the client (and it was already only applicable for a small time window). With this proposal the client needs to decide to cancel based on the limited information in the simplified PUSH_PROMISE. To further simplifies server push just restrict CANCEL_PUSH to be server-sent only and state that a client can only cancel pushes by issuing STOP_SENDING.

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