- From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:33:53 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
could also be refused because that particular server is shutting down and is thus "unwilling" re-issuing it to the same virtual host may result in a server more "willing" On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 August 2014 02:44, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote: >> The definition of REFUSED_STREAM is somewhat contradictory with the >> definition of the word refused. The word refused is defined as: indicate or >> show that one is *not willing* to do something [1]. The definition of >> REFUSED_STREAM in Section 7 references section 8.1.4 which says that a >> REFUSED_STREAM is safe to retry. In other words the server is actually >> *willing* to process the stream, but *currently unable* (e.g. because the >> client overran settings and so the client needs to retry the stream with the >> new settings). > > I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. Does anyone else? >
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 17:34:20 UTC