- From: Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:28:31 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 14:29:22 UTC
It is possible to set SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS to 0. AFAIK, the design rationale behind this is that a client can forbid server push if it does not implement it yet or just does not want to receive push streams. Since streams in "reserved (local)" state do no count as active stream, the server can still promise push streams even if SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS is 0. (But it can not actually send the content on the promised stream.) This goes against the design rationale, since clients will still have to be able to deal with PUSH_PROMISEs if they want to comply to the standard. What is the rationale behind not counting reserved streams as active? They usually become active very soon so it would make sense to count them as active as well. This would also prohibit servers promising streams when SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS is 0. Gábor
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 14:29:22 UTC