Re: Implicit close of idle streams

On 13 August 2013 23:38, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> That part that is confusing the most I think is the "might have been
> initiated by that peer" part. The way I understood the state model,
> "idle" streams are not "initiated"... All streams start in the "idle"
> state. The word "initiate" is used in a number of places when talking
> about putting streams into the "open" state.

Let's whittle this down a little: would s/initiated/opened/ fix this,
or is this something related more generally to the "might have" thing
(i.e., a client opening stream 5 implicitly closes streams 1 and 3,
but not streams 2 or 4).  Do you think that the latter needs more
clarification too?

Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:47:12 UTC