- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700
- 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