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

Re: PUSH_PROMISE associated stream

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:32:15 -0700
Message-ID: <531E3D6F.2010300@fb.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the clarification. The second sentence makes  a lot more 
sense in that context. Would anyone mind if I submit a pull request to 
make this fact explicit in the first sentence I quoted?

On 03/10/2014 03:18 PM, Jeff Pinner wrote:
> The stream-id of the PUSH_PROMISE frame is the existing, 
> peer-initiated stream (the associated-to-stream-id in SPDY).
> The promised-stream-id is the id of the to-be-initiated pushed stream 
> (the stream-id in pushed SYN_STREAM frame in SPDY).
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com 
> <mailto:dcsommer@fb.com>> wrote:
>     From 6.6 PUSH_PROMISE:
>     PUSH_PROMISE frames MUST be associated with an existing,
>     peer-initiated stream. If the stream identifier field specifies
>     the value 0x0, a recipient MUST respond with a connection error
>     (Section 5.4.1
>     <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#ConnectionErrorHandler>)
>     of type PROTOCOL_ERROR
>     <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#PROTOCOL_ERROR>.
>     Is this a vestigial carry-over from SPDY? I don't see an
>     "Associated-To-Stream-ID" field in PUSH_PROMISE. At first glance,
>     it looks like HTTP/2 does away with requirement that a pushed
>     resource be associated with a client-initiated stream.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 22:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC