W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

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

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:29:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV=-hp5AQbHBO7FW9sXAjSaXE3UzSQxcR2UOM6UAajgSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12 August 2013 23:58, 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.

This is a good point.  It's especially bad if the intermediary already
forwarded the last frame.  Not that we should be allowing that to
happen of course, since PUSH_PROMISE shouldn't be the last frame in a
response...

I tend to think that prohibition is the most reasonable reaction.  I'm
not that keen to move the END_STREAM bit off the last frame on the
stream, even if it is technically the same
but-we-had-to-split-it-up-a-little-so-that-it-fits frame.  It spreads
the frame processing logic over multiple headers in ways that will
probably lead to implementation errors.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 23:29:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC