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 11:39:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_g8o62cCeo1J3c0yXnESiP+USh+BSCs9kFSoSar4_+iMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Michael, I meant an "outlier" from the stream perspective -- i.e. the
"upgrade" stream is special and requires special case logic for things
besides stream id (priority for example).

Martin, I think the following:

It is perfectly acceptable for a client implementation to always begin with
stream-id 3 and reserve stream-id 1 for upgrade.

I disagree with the requirement that if a client does ALPN or
direct-to-HTTP is a connection error to send stream-id 1. I'd prefer to
keep all the "special-case" logic for upgrade within the upgrade path.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Martin Thomson

> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> > The upgrade case is the outlier and already has lots of special case
> logic.
> I suspected that this would be the reason :)
> > 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.
> I'll note that the last sentence could be construed as an argument for
> starting from 3 always.  I think that you instead want to say that you
> don't want to be affected by something you don't plan to implement.
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 18:40:17 UTC

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