Re: #44: alt-svc frame on pushed streams

On Mar 22, 2015 11:32 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> So, I think we could solve Patrick’s issue by saying:
>

Ack

>
> WRT Julian's issue, I think we could address this by changing
>

Sgtm

> """
>


> Discuss...
>
>
>
> > On 17 Mar 2015, at 12:21 pm, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Issue 44, which I raised, is specifically about the interpretation of
the origin field for pushed streams. The document already sepcifies must
ignore ignore the frame for pulled streams which specify an origin (because
the stream ID is supposed to define the origin) but it is silent about
pushed streams. I suggested must ignore for pushed streams too (when they
provide an origin) which still makes sense to me (i.e. as martin says, they
aren't special.)
> >
> > Julian added onto the issue saying we don't specify altsvc frame
handling in general (not just origin semantics) for pushed frames. Mark
seems to have coalesced those two points into this one email - I agree that
the answer for the whole frame shouldn't be must ignore assuming it doesn't
supply an origin.
> >
> > at least that's the way I unwind it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Martin Thomson <
martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 16 March 2015 at 22:50, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > > Any objection to stating that they MUST be ignored by recipients?
> >
> > Is there any reason that server-initiated streams need to be made
> > special?  I mean, once the standard response handling has started, I
> > can't imagine any reason for treating push specially.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>