Re: initial stream id from a client

Jeff,

With all due respect, I don't think we can consider HTTP/2.0 upgrade an "outlier". I rather suspect that it will get used quite often when a) security of the communications channel is not a concern and b) existing usage makes wholesale adoption of HTTP/2.0 impossible.

I'm a printer guy, so my first thoughts are IPP and IPP USB (which provides a HTTP/1.1 transport over USB), but I am sure there are other users of HTTP/1.1 that could benefit from using HTTP/2.0 when it is supported but can't otherwise require it.


On Aug 13, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> sry, it return too early...
> 
> The upgrade case is the outlier and already has lots of special case logic.
> If the upgrade is successful than the session handling will have to manage a stream-ID of 1. It doesn't make sense to couple the session handling with the wire format.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> yes
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 11:08, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> > For simplicity and consistency I prefer that the stream #1 is always
> > reserved, so that client always starts with stream 3.
> 
> This sounds like a reasonable motivation for option 3.  Does anyone
> want to argue for using stream 1 when over TLS?
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair