On 5 August 2017 at 10:55, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote: > Martin, > > I think the idea of sequential Push ID is a good one. You have to specify > a MAX_PUSH_ID, without which the client won't know how far out to expect > CANCEL_PUSHes can be... this also requires then a MAX_PUSH_ID_UPDATE > message which can be used to move the MAX up. > > One note: > > >> PUSH_PROMISE is sent by the server, and CANCEL_PUSH may be sent by the >>>>> server. The text currently says that CANCEL_PUSH on a non-existent Push ID >>>>> results in error, which does not work with the possibility of reordering >>>>> between PUSH_PROMISE and CANCEL_PUSH. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's just a bug. >>>> >>> > I don't think so. The spec allows it, and I can easily see it happen in > practice. > By bug, I meant that I made a mistake in the PR and forgot about the possibility of reordering, that's all.
Received on Saturday, 5 August 2017 10:24:18 UTC