W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

(unknown charset) Re: Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16: (with COMMENT)

From: (unknown charset) Nicholas Hurley <X-Spam-Level:>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:33:47 -0800
Message-Id: <1422030827.1456152.217953661.56EA8D3B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: (unknown charset) ietf-http-wg@w3.org

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015, at 03:26, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
> On 23 January 2015 at 12:13, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>> We could introduce a RESET state, which means that CLOSE will always
>> be entered gracefully and there will be no late packets. RESET could
>> then have defined timeout before entering CLOSE.
>
> Actually, if we made RESET an acknowledged frame, then we could avoid
> the timeout completely as once you have both sent and received a RESET
> you can enter close gracefully.
>
> I know it is late to be hammering on this bugbear, but I'll prepare a
> PR none the less.

Well, yes, you're right there, it absolutely is too late to be
hammering on this. Not only are you just moving complexity from one
state to another (that actually means the same thing, with a different
name), you're adding more normative text and changing the behavior of
the protocol. Given that we're past WGLC and well into dealing with
the IESG's feedback, I don't see how adding a "rst ack" could possibly
have any chance of meeting the high bar for changes to be accepted at
this point.

I'm a solid -1 on this, and I'm confident in saying there is no argument
that will change my mind on this one.
--
Peace, -Nick
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 16:34:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC