W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: WINDOW_UPDATE(0) ?

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 08:48:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJEMiq2uXwM-dbdPqnQx2Etricb6tteeUe6LO8bjy5DMEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 July 2014 08:37, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> Draft -13 doesn't say what WINDOW_UPDATE(0) means ?
>
> Should the text read "0 to 2^31-1" instead of "1 to 2^31-1"
> or should we explicitly mention it to be reserved, undefined
> or to be ignored ?

You're right, there's no explicit description here, but I'd argue that
this text:

>The legal range for the increment to the flow control window is 1 to
> 2^31 - 1 (0x7fffffff) bytes.

means that WINDOW_UPDATE(0) is a protocol error. I'd want to tear down
the stream with GOAWAY, error code PROTOCOL_ERROR (because it's not in
the explicitly enumerated reasons for using FLOW_CONTROL_ERROR). I
think we should update the spec to either allow it (as a no-op) or
reject with error code FLOW_CONTROL_ERROR.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 07:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC