This use case has come up for us recently as well. I like Jeff's suggestion both the client and server should be explicitly free to send a RST_STREAM at any time without it necessarily indicating an error. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I’ve heard at least one other person bring up this scenario recently > (forget who), FWIW. We should clarify, I think. > > > On 24 Sep 2014, at 5:11 pm, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > > >> While I understand the scenario, it seems more appropriate for the > client to send the RST_STREAM(OK) if it decides to abort sending the rest > of the body. > > > > I think that should be valid as well. Basically I think either should > > be able to tear down the stream via RST_STREAM(OK) without the other > > considering it an error, and that the text should be clarified to make > > it explicit. > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 21:24:34 UTC