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

RE: initial stream id from a client

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 05:00:24 +0000
To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6cddfd74142a4804bfb415d7046a4794@BN1PR03MB021.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hm.  Yes, I can see where that could be read both ways.  I agree, it would be good to clarify the spec, either way. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shigeki Ohtsu [mailto:ohtsu@iij.ad.jp] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:57 PM
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: initial stream id from a client

Thanks, I feel relieved that it is the same as draft-04.

The description of "stream identifier 0x1 MUST NOT be used" newly appeared in 05 so it would be helpful for me if its condition is written more clearly without depending on its context.

(2013/08/13 13:46), Mike Bishop wrote:
> In the TLS case, or direct-to-2.0 case, there is no implicit stream, and so no need to reserve one.  The client opens a stream with an ID of its choosing and the server responds on it.
>
> In Upgrade, though, the client request was sent as 1.1 with no stream ID, but the server has to respond to that request on a stream, so the spec arbitrarily states what stream the client's request was on.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shigeki Ohtsu [mailto:ohtsu@iij.ad.jp]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 8:39 PM
> To: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: initial stream id from a client
>
> Please let me clarify the initial stream id from a client written in draft-05.
>
> In 5.1.1 Stream Identifiers,
> " A stream identifier of one (0x1) is used to respond to the HTTP/1.1 request which was specified during Upgrade (see Section 3.2); stream identifier 0x1 MUST NOT be used by a client to establish a new stream."
>
> Is 0x1 always reserved for the implicit stream so that a stream from a client should start from 0x3 even in a TLS connection?
> And if a server receives a stream of 0x1 from a client, is it a connection error?
>
> Or is it only the case of upgrade?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 05:01:13 UTC

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