Re: MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 and PUSH_PROMISE

On 7/24/13 1:43 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 15:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a proxy guy, actually.
>
> I think that onus is on Roberto to more effectively motivate the need
> for this distinction.
>
> If indeed we agree that the two cases are distinct, then we probably
> need to consider ways to communicate this distinction effectively.  A
> separate setting that expressly disables push promise or limits the
> number of promises might work.
>

I'm very much in favor of this, be explicit about the client option to 
tell the server to never send push promises. It avoids any potential 
semantics overloading issues that we haven't yet foreseen. Plus, Roberto 
makes some pretty compelling arguments as to why it can make sense for a 
client to set MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 but still want to see the push 
promises.

-- Leif

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 20:29:06 UTC