Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Are initial_max_stream_id_bidi/uni examples correct? #1000

Closed
ddragana opened this issue Dec 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

Are initial_max_stream_id_bidi/uni examples correct? #1000

ddragana opened this issue Dec 7, 2017 · 3 comments
Labels
invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list.

Comments

@ddragana
Copy link
Contributor

ddragana commented Dec 7, 2017

"This value MUST be a valid bidirectional stream ID for a peer-initiated stream (that is, the two least significant bits are set to 0 by a server and to 1 by a client)."
Should this be other way around? the two least significant bits of initial_max_stream_id_bidi should be set to 1 by a server, because that is a valid stream ID for its peer, i.e. a client?

There is a similar issue for initial_max_stream_id_uni.

@ddragana
Copy link
Contributor Author

ddragana commented Dec 7, 2017

Sorry, I accidentally looked at a older version of draft.

@ddragana ddragana closed this as completed Dec 7, 2017
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

And thus does issue #1000 pass. Ignominiously. How apt.

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

Various dictionaries define "igominous" as shameful or disgraceful, which is a bit harsh :-) Nevertheless, indifference to the passage of this benchmark is welcome.

@mnot mnot added the invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list. label Mar 5, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
invalid A duplicate, overcome-by-events, ill-formed, or off-topic issue, or a question better asked on-list.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants