- From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:54:54 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One inconsistency in the revised text: You still say at line 2444 that initiating new requests "is inadvisable." It's not just inadvisable, it's MUST NOT at line 2353. I'll also note that the seamless hand-off is a perfect reason for the DRAINING frame extension that was also floated during that discussion -- DRAINING could be defined as a hint that the client should spin up a secondary connection because a GOAWAY is coming soon. No harm if the client doesn't understand or obey it -- the loss is strictly its own. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 7:36 AM To: Mike Bishop Cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: GOAWAY clarification On 22 March 2015 at 20:27, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 March 2015 at 17:17, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: >> On the other hand, I'm still inclined to see MUST NOT create new streams as the intent of GOAWAY. I've updated the PR. I think that this is *purely* clarification now. Please confirm that this is the case. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/733/files
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 18:55:28 UTC