Subject: Issue push id

From: Patrick McManus <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:49:05 -0400

re https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/701/ which is meant to close
issues 281 and 702.

Basically a big thumbs up - but they're all marked design issues so I
wanted to make sure to make a list comment about the PR. In general I think
when QUIC transport stream IDs show up as copied information into http
level frames (or worse - applications using quic) we've probably made a
mistake. So this push-id-label is great.

-P

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:22:15 +1000

Ahh, you beat me to it.  I ran out of time yesterday to do the list
announcement.

Yes, we discussed this briefly in Prague and the feedback I got was
that people wanted to see a PR for describing how to identify pushes
other than by stream ID.  This is that PR.

In the write-up I did, I point out that this allows you to promise the
same thing multiple times and fulfill all those promises just once.
This is somewhat novel.  I'd like to understand if people are willing
to accept this particular trade-off.

On 28 July 2017 at 05:49, Patrick McManus <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Basically a big thumbs up - but they're all marked design issues so I wanted
> to make sure to make a list comment about the PR. In general I think when
> QUIC transport stream IDs show up as copied information into http level
> frames (or worse - applications using quic) we've probably made a mistake.
> So this push-id-label is great.
>
> -P
>