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

Re: initial stream id from a client

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:58:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_jgYzP+DVKOCMmKcgytZoeiE2+cE3rH_KHgLXKy8+JdAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
sry, it return too early...

The upgrade case is the outlier and already has lots of special case logic.
If the upgrade is successful than the session handling will have to manage
a stream-ID of 1. It doesn't make sense to couple the session handling with
the wire format.


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> yes
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On 13 August 2013 11:08, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
>> wrote:
>> > For simplicity and consistency I prefer that the stream #1 is always
>> > reserved, so that client always starts with stream 3.
>>
>> This sounds like a reasonable motivation for option 3.  Does anyone
>> want to argue for using stream 1 when over TLS?
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:58:54 UTC

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