Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 29 April 2013 14:15, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I had thought to provide no explicit limit for PUSH_PROMISE, just as there
> is no limit to the size of a webpage, or the number of links upon it.
> The memory requirements for PUSH are similar or the same (push should
> consume a single additional bit of overhead per url, when one considers that
> the URL should be parsed, enqueued, etc.).
> If the browser isn't done efficiently, or, the server is for some unknown
> reason being stupid and attempting to DoS the browser with many resources
> that it will never use, then the client sends RST_STREAM for the ones it
> doesn't want, and makes a request on its own. all tidy.

I think that this is where I was going with my thinking.

> As for PUSH'd streams, the easiest solution is likely to assume that the
> stream starts out in a half-closed state.

That works for

I think that conceptually a third state makes the most sense, but that
would be roughly equivalent to half-closed.