Re: RST_STREAM(OK) after an HTTP response

Iíve heard at least one other person bring up this scenario recently (forget who), FWIW. We should clarify, I think.

On 24 Sep 2014, at 5:11 pm, Jeff Pinner <> wrote:

>> While I understand the scenario, it seems more appropriate for the client to send the RST_STREAM(OK) if it decides to abort sending the rest of the body.
> I think that should be valid as well. Basically I think either should
> be able to tear down the stream via RST_STREAM(OK) without the other
> considering it an error, and that the text should be clarified to make
> it explicit.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 17:29:47 UTC