- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:08:33 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It seems like we have consensus here; marking as editor-ready. > On 23 Oct 2014, at 6:36 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/635 > > On 23 October 2014 13:38, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com> wrote: >> It seems clear to me that sending a WINDOW_UPDATE in this situation is >> a useful thing for a client to do. I suggest giving the point to >> firefox, and changing the first text. >> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> Hi All. >>> >>> Firefox receives a PUSH_PROMISE from node-http2 (speaking -14). That puts >>> Firefox into reserved-remote and node into reserved-local. >>> >>> Firefox sends a WINDOW_UPDATE on that stream and node replies with GOAWAY >>> Protocol-Error >>> >>> Section 5.1 of -14 has this to say: >>> reserved (local): [..] >>> >>> A PRIORITY frame MAY be received in this state. Receiving any type of frame >>> other than RST_STREAM or PRIORITY on a stream in this state MUST be treated >>> as a connection error (Section 5.4.1) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR. >>> >>> point to node! However it also has this to say: >>> >>> reserved (remote): [..] >>> >>> An endpoint MAY send a PRIORITY frame in this state to reprioritize the >>> reserved stream. An endpoint MUST NOT send any type of frame other than >>> RST_STREAM, WINDOW_UPDATE, or PRIORITY in this state. >>> >>> point to firefox! We're all winners here. >>> >>> Which state should be changed? >>> >>> -Patrick >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 27 October 2014 21:08:57 UTC