Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

The current text says:

"""
Frame types other than DATA<http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#DATA>
 or RST_STREAM <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#RST_STREAM> MUST
NOT be sent on a connected stream, and MUST be treated as a stream error (
Section 5.4.2<http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/index.html#StreamErrorHandler>)
if received.
"""

I believe that WINDOW_UPDATE must be allowed to the connected stream since
it is  subject to stream-level flow control unless it is disabled.
I also think PRIORITY frame should not be prohibited. The client has a
freedom to adjust stream priority of connected stream just as other streams.

Best regards,

Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa



On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> The final problem is that we need to specify what code to use in
> RST_STREAM when the TCP connection breaks (TCP RST isn't the only
> reason that might happen, we have to allow for timeouts).
>
> I've proposed the definition of a CONNECT_ERROR code (10) for this purpose.
>
> See
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/ac528cdbb64a1b2e62dac4e79358752b12863d19
>
> On 3 October 2013 14:27, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24 September 2013 11:02, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> Sorry for the delay. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/249.
> >
> > That's OK, I was on vacation (that is, closer to 100% of the time than
> yours).
> >
> > I've accepted the pull request, but I think that there are a few
> > things to resolve.
> >
> > 1. The :host header.  I'm not comfortable with the MAY on this.  Given
> > that this is 100% new functionality, I think that we need better
> > justification than the fact that some HTTP/1.x (or even 0.9) clients
> > set different values for the target URI and Host header.  Just because
> > they did something wrong, it doesn't mean that we have to.  Requiring
> > the omission of :host doesn't lose anything, ... unless existing
> > proxies are doing something special based on its value.
> >
> > 2. I need to find some way to incorporate the comments that Ilari made
> > here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/1036.html
> >  (Not including the suggestion to fix the scheme to "tcp", even though
> > it's a very interesting idea.  But that opens up a whole new can of
> > extensibility worms that I'd rather leave closed.)  We also need to
> > say that implementations are obligated to send END_STREAM as soon as
> > possible if they see END_STREAM, otherwise we violate assumptions in
> > TCP.  Those more familiar with TCP can correct me here if I've
> > misinterpreted RFC 793 or am ignorant of actual behaviour.
>
>