Any further thoughts on this? Should I put together a pull request? On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:28 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote: > On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 31 August 2013 23:28, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > Yeah, I didn't really know how to spec that. Basically, the DATA frames >> form >> > the bidirectional tunnel. >> >> Then that's what you say :) >> >> > I'm not quite sure what else to say here, [...] >> >> The only thing that probably needs looking into is the effect that >> tunneling has on what the TLS layer will probably treat like TCP. >> That is, note how this potentially differs from TCP. Frame sizes can >> be dealt with easily enough, but you also need to consider how it >> closes. Maybe this leads to a requirement to treat END_STREAM like >> FIN (just as RST_STREAM is analogous to RST). >> > > I was naturally assuming that END_STREAM==FIN in the tunnel. I guess we > need to specify it? How about adding the following paragraph: > > ===== > After successfully establishing a CONNECT tunnel over a stream, the stream > DATA frames comprise the data of the bidirectional tunnel. Each direction > of the tunnel is closed via the END_STREAM flag, similar to how TCP closes > each direction with its FIN flag. RST_STREAM abnormally terminates the > tunnel, similar to how TCP RSTs abnormally terminate the connection. > ===== >
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 15:36:47 UTC