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

Re: GOAWAY clarification

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUoVZkj6+8cVapJ9gp_OPDgkD_FzrUspK8jJu=vkhV-rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 March 2015 at 09:35, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> 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.  https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/732

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC