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 18:25:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeM-OjYq_87QR+__sTTk6=W0CVMqTieYDx2p_ERXJaWjw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

The part that is confusing is: What if stream 3 is open. The way the
text currently reads, it's not clear if opening 5 causes open streams
to close... vs. opening 5 causes all *previously unused* streams with
lower stream ID's to be automatically closed, while leaving non-idle
streams with ids < 5 alone. (I know how it's supposed to work, of
course, but the way it's worded currently, it's not clear, and I'm
afraid that it could be confusing and misleading, particularly to
non-native english readers.
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 01:26:10 UTC

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