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

Re: PUSH_PROMISE associated stream

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:35:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf0qzJJBra=vf6QRmu9J4Ca7aviDq6nveWsKxVk9NA+6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I haven't known anyone to get upset about receiving pull requests that make
things more clear :)
-=R


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote:

>  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>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 22:36:09 UTC

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