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

Re: Implicit close of idle streams

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:38:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbeg8Lefejw6Xan7TaC59mkZ+_Q3SauZLe7VhYETUV0r_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Just saw you checked in the following change:

+  The first use of a new stream identifier implicitly closes all
streams in the "idle"
+  state that might have been initiated by that peer with a
lower-valued stream identifier.

That part that is confusing the most I think is the "might have been
initiated by that peer" part. The way I understood the state model,
"idle" streams are not "initiated"... All streams start in the "idle"
state. The word "initiate" is used in a number of places when talking
about putting streams into the "open" state.

-  James

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 20:18, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>    The first use of a new stream identifier implicitly closes all idle
>> streams that might have been initiated by that peer with a
>> lower-valued stream identifier.
>>
>> This could use some clarification around what "idle stream" means. I
>> know we define it elsewhere but the context gets a bit lost here.
>
> Would it be clearer if it said "... implicitly closes all streams in
> the "idle" state ..." ?
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:38:56 UTC

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