W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response

From: Michaela LaVan <mlavan@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:24:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAN9NB6TgtUTuXut71LYxi4-_HxNqPWchpNDe3X59Pe892q6nQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
This use case has come up for us recently as well. I like Jeff's suggestion
both the client and server should be explicitly free to send a RST_STREAM
at any time without it necessarily indicating an error.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I’ve heard at least one other person bring up this scenario recently
> (forget who), FWIW. We should clarify, I think.
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2014, at 5:11 pm, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> >> While I understand the scenario, it seems more appropriate for the
> client to send the RST_STREAM(OK) if it decides to abort sending the rest
> of the body.
> >
> > I think that should be valid as well. Basically I think either should
> > be able to tear down the stream via RST_STREAM(OK) without the other
> > considering it an error, and that the text should be clarified to make
> > it explicit.
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 21:24:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC