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

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Wed, 27 November 2019 14:40 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 6CA9512009C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.596
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 KXw4Z8jKiHVz for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out-2.smtp.github.com (out-2.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D6612013D for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; 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; d=github.com; 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 <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK7SIO3Q4DFFLYXVDCN35O6UJEVBNHHB7DC6LI@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275/559114513@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_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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/pTkFadUQ3_ugBPB_UqmElz3odLM>
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: 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:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3275#issuecomment-559114513