Re: [#228] PUSH_PROMISE with CONTINUATION can end a stream

How so? Intermediary receives a PUSH_PROMISE with END_STREAM, if it
chooses not to forward that on, it sends an empty DATA frame with
END_STREAM, none of the semantics are changed really. That said, I
have no strong opinion about it one way or the other.

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> PUSH_PROMISE is hop-by-hop -- if you end the stream with a push promise flag
> you have to tell intermediates to forward the flag on some other frame, and
> that may or may not break the semantics of the layered application.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:54 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see no reason at all why PUSH_PROMISE can't have END_STREAM.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/228
>> >
>> > PUSH_PROMISE does not have an END_STREAM flag.
>> >
>> > However, a sender might emit a PUSH_PROMISE followed by a CONTINUATION
>> > with the END_STREAM set. As specified, this ends the stream.
>> >
>> > I think that we need to either prohibit this, or we add END_STREAM to
>> > PUSH_PROMISE.  I don't care which.  Bike shed... go!
>> >
>>
>

Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 23:01:51 UTC