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: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:05:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdveH61JXRTvaqhfEaj1XgwvMctHwfemHjAofpZQs=_ig@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, with a bit of refinement that is better. I struggled to come up
with a good alternative also...

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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 17:05:59 UTC

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