W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013


From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:31:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX30C3koONT_xQVDM-ehKd2pPi2AP6Mue1mM8tMTuEZ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
James wrote:
>> +1 ... for completeness, the definition of the RST_STREAM and GOAWAY
>> frames can say that the FINAL flag is to be ignored in all cases
>> because the frames themselves are terminal in nature.

Agreed, clarification == good.

On 25 April 2013 12:21, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> GOAWAY and RST_STREAM have different semantics -- but I would note that
> RST_STREAM is different than FINAL because it puts the stream in a closed
> state and not half-closed and thus behaves differently when the initiator of
> the stream sends it (RST_STREAM w/ CANCEL for example)

Absolutely.  The initiator can abandon a stream, and RST_STREAM
signals three things: I wont send any more, what I sent isn't
complete, and don't send me any more.  FINAL covers only the first
part of that.

But I don't see how those differences are relevant to this case.  Can
you expand?
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 19:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC