Re: Unidirectional streams PR

[Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

On 29 June 2017 at 20.40.50, Christian Huitema ([e-mail]) wrote:

I am looking at the "mixed" scenario, in which the client would open an
unidirectional stream with an associated "stream N" in the other direction.
Will we say that doing so automatically pushes the server's maximum stream
ID to some value greater than N?

I believe the streams need to operate independently: having endpoint A open
a unidirectional stream A/N that can be responded to by endpoint B
necessarily requires that B has granted A a limit of at least the value
A/N. If the stream A/N permits association by one or more streams B/M
initiated by B, each of those streams necessarily must be at or below the
limit granted by A but only once those streams are in fact opened. Endpoint
A might never grant sufficient streams to enable B to respond. The
identifiers B/M chosen by B are unknown to A.

Note that there is a problem with enforcing how many streams that can be
associated with A/N because A/N might be closed and gone. Keeping state is
problematic. On the other hand it is trivial to reject associations with
streams that have not yet been opened, especially if streams are opened in
strict order. Implicit opening of lower valued streams will not work, and
is not needed.