Re: initial stream id from a client

+1 for all of this... :)
On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> Michael, I meant an "outlier" from the stream perspective -- i.e. the "upgrade" stream is special and requires special case logic for things besides stream id (priority for example).
> 
> Martin, I think the following:
> 
> It is perfectly acceptable for a client implementation to always begin with stream-id 3 and reserve stream-id 1 for upgrade.
> 
> I disagree with the requirement that if a client does ALPN or direct-to-HTTP is a connection error to send stream-id 1. I'd prefer to keep all the "special-case" logic for upgrade within the upgrade path.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 18:58, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> > The upgrade case is the outlier and already has lots of special case logic.
> 
> I suspected that this would be the reason :)
> 
> > If the upgrade is successful than the session handling will have to manage a
> > stream-ID of 1. It doesn't make sense to couple the session handling with
> > the wire format.
> 
> I'll note that the last sentence could be construed as an argument for
> starting from 3 always. I think that you instead want to say that you
> don't want to be affected by something you don't plan to implement.
> 
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair