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

Re: PUSH_PROMISE at invalid times

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:47:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVKbio0nb2ZLrBhByLEYj-Wyrd8FL+EUBO0VY2LPOi6HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17 August 2013 06:06, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> wrote:
> The alternative approach is always process PUSH_PROMISE
> and its header block, thus changes stream state and compression
> state. After that if the receiver thinks that it should be rejected,
> then issue RST_STREAM to the promised stream ID.

We've made it a general policy that we'll be really harsh on badly
behaving implementations.  Being tolerant of rubbish just hides
implementation issues.  We've all seen how much damage has done to

In this case, the only thing that is missing - at least in the cited
text - is another mention that it is possible that you can receive a
PUSH_PROMISE after sending RST_STREAM.  That's already in the stream
states section, but there's no mention in the PUSH_PROMISE section
that was added.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 16:48:13 UTC

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