Re: GOAWAY clarification

On 21 March 2015 at 09:35, Martin Thomson <> wrote:
> It would be easy to deal with your concern by having the receiver of
> the GOAWAY reply with their own.  I think that avoids all of the
> problems you indicate.

So @Scottmitch also notes a further bug here.  We currently prohibit
the creation of more streams after GOAWAY, which is in direct
contradiction to the graceful shutdown process.

    Receivers of a GOAWAY frame MUST NOT open additional
    streams on the connection, although a new connection can be
    established for new streams.

That contradicts the guidance we provide later in the section
regarding graceful shutdown.  It prevents a seamless transition from
one connection to another.

I've created a PR for this.

I've also taken the liberty of taking a variation on the text from @buchgr.

I think that this is erratum-worthy, so I'd like to get this in.  But
I won't do so if there are objections.  If my answer to Amos'
objection didn't satisfy you (see above; see also the PR text; Amos?)
then I can remove the second part of the change, but I tend to think
that it's more consistent with the other fix.

Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 02:27:57 UTC