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

Re: initial stream id from a client

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:14:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcjpkC-17PdvT7eOovfFNd4bV+cYzNMHSTfGtGToDUP1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
++


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> 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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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 19:15:18 UTC

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