- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:46:43 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 August 2013 23:38, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Let's whittle this down a little: would s/initiated/opened/ fix this, or is this something related more generally to the "might have" thing (i.e., a client opening stream 5 implicitly closes streams 1 and 3, but not streams 2 or 4). Do you think that the latter needs more clarification too?
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:47:12 UTC