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


From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:30:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdqwiwcdXOts1bOg4es9iMWygPN-LZGvZOpdcBOg0sXSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I have an edit for this in my local fork. I will submit a pull request
later today that can be reviewed.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 Friday, 26 April 2013 17:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC