Re: GOAWAY clarification

Martin Thomson <> Sun, 22 March 2015 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77E81A00F8 for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mnG2tl--ya_e for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C811A00F4 for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1YZVcX-0007UN-OA for; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:28:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:28:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1YZVcL-0007Tb-Oh for; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:27:57 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1YZVcD-0001TM-37 for; Sun, 22 Mar 2015 02:27:52 +0000
Received: by oier21 with SMTP id r21so117889631oie.1 for <>; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jYWKfmbT0X4t5JAfPxIsvYDfHIIfrPfUXiPW+PegqGs=; b=BJJhU5RO0dDEDqPYe/JDI8IK0it+PWEN4vC4/pLd9tImA7QEAAmO2BcIlFpwkNXXo7 9b5W2VJaatuYZZDVs4lTXzTjjMktxLjIPLcgQPXveb4KDn2QtCaohio2Q3Ueima3AVaL gHIV93aC2QP4g8njr7/RTeKpQg1AAg6V68RI8Zduw37Qb5/XluQ/TabkKN2TkatJpkQj gpczUKiG0YDArEOaa3fk/Kf38Sq9q/3ydLYoZy0eApLWeOeNOl3IRCZ6XDIyK82cVSDs 57rq4BtcCCoQcK9OzjPFnlHhSThKRin+t7Gda+iFc80V6nD+rEg3TCyxsSxmb1LO65oX 2/LQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id c135mr66970600oih.44.1426991243123; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:27:23 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Amos Jeffries <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.397, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1YZVcD-0001TM-37 34669b7e45f3e9b68f2bd1c8cb4a4e15
Subject: Re: GOAWAY clarification
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/29007
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 21 March 2015 at 09:35, Martin Thomson <> 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.

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.