- From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 07:59:37 +0000
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I just gave a try at the send/recv clarifications. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/659 Hervé. > -----Original Message----- > From: phluid61@gmail.com [mailto:phluid61@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Matthew Kerwin > Sent: jeudi 27 novembre 2014 00:51 > To: Greg Wilkins > Cc: Martin Thomson; HTTP Working Group > Subject: Re: Improving the state machine > > On 27 November 2014 at 09:28, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > But other than than old lost battle.... I think the send/recv clarifications > are good ones. Not such a big fan of the use of the word "either", which looks > like it applies to the frame type and not to the send or recv. Maybe > "send/recv" would be better than "either". > > > > > > I agree, the word "either" isn't great. Since the space in the diagram is so > limited, I'd be tempted to suggest symbols for send/recv/both. However that > would get messy fast. > > Why not leave out the "either", and reorder the two ambigious cases: "R / send > ES", "R / recv ES" ? > > If that's too finicky, this PR is still an improvement. > > > -- > > Matthew Kerwin > http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2014 08:00:40 UTC