W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: Error behevior of receiving PUSH_PROMISE when SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH is 0

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:56:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd2eF0Y=x-ffAW8ZQMcc-9bU10gP0bF3dJQgosqMshF5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There is no description about the behavior of receiving PUSH_PUROMISE when
> SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH is 0.
>
> As the other errors caused by PUSH_PROMISE, MUST the receiver treat it as
>  a connection error of type PROTOCOL_ERROR?
>
>
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.


> The difference between two cases in receiving PUSH_PROMISE when
> SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS is 0 and when SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH is 0 is
> that the former accepts PUSH_PROMISE whereas the latter does not.
> Is this correct?
>

correct.


>
> 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.
-=R



>
> Regards,
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 01:56:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC