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

Re: Implicit close of idle streams

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:02:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYi3WX+=DWqs1NDco0N7U3j1=Z6xv-c8sev6+i2=Bw73UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sorry Martin, I think I'm with everyone else in thinking this is confusing.
You're being very precise with your language, and it's technically correct,
but I believe that's because you've internalized the state diagram. The
simplest, yet perhaps imprecise, way of describing this is to say that
stream ids are monotonically increasing, so you once you use a new stream
identifier X, you cannot newly use a stream identifier < X. I'm terrible at
this editorial stuff and don't know if my new proposed wording is any
better. I suspect it's very possibly worse :P

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 14 August 2013 16:15, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm non-native English readers and if you ask me it is confusing then
> I'll
> > answers yes.
> > My understanding is that that explains the monotonically increasing
> stream
> > identifier scheme
> > in formal way. I think it would be less confusing to convey that notion.
> I'm having trouble with this confusion because every time I read the
> section in its entirety, it's perfectly clear to me.  Even after doing
> what I can do compensate for the usual I-wrote-this blindness.
> I'll add an example, which I hope clarifies this, but in the absence
> of specific suggestion, I don't know how I can address these comments.
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 17:02:44 UTC

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