Re: Error behevior of receiving PUSH_PROMISE when SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH is 0

> hmm, surprising that it wouldn't be defined, but I haven't checked lately.
> a connection-error is reasonable, but if the value of ENABLE_PUSH is changing, you'll want to ensure that you've received the ACK for the
> appropriate setting before treating it as an error.

Yes, there is a racing condition to synchronize ENABLE_PUSH.
A client needs to choice accept or reset promised streams in that case.

>     And I also found no description of the case when a server receive PUSH_PROMISE.
>     It should be also treated as a connection error. Right?
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with a server receiving a PUSH_PROMISE since the lower-layer stuff is symmetrical, though it makes little sense at the
> HTTP layer, which should probably treat it as an error of some kind.

Yes, in framing layer PUSH_PROMISE is defined with the word of an endpoint
  neither a server nor a client.

The terms of a server and a client in the sepc are defined as the condition
  in which TCP connection is initiated so there can be an another world where
  a non-HTTP request is sent from a server to a client.

Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 02:33:46 UTC