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

Re: Implicit close of idle streams

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 23:46:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXD9bwsM43kiE-Y4-pKr-47iKBXE-QCpujNUfRyhKDgJg@mail.gmail.com>
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

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