Re: initial stream id from a client

++
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:39 AM, 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.
>>
>
>