Code change:
state (see HeaderBlock); similarly DATA frames MUST be counted toward the connection flow control window. <del> The GTFO frame does not define any flags. </del> <ins> The GOAWAY frame does not define any flags. </ins> <del> The GTFO frame applies to the connection, not a specific stream.  An endpoint MUST treat a </del> <ins> The GOAWAY frame applies to the connection, not a specific stream. An endpoint MUST treat a </ins> frame with a stream identifier other than 0x0 as a ConnectionErrorHandler of type . <del> The last stream identifier ("Last-Stream-ID") in the GTFO frame contains the highest numbered stream identifier for which the sender of the GTFO frame has received frames on and might have taken some action on.  All streams up to and including the identified stream might have been processed in some way.  The last stream identifier is set to 0 if no streams were processed. </del> <ins> The last stream identifier in the GOAWAY frame contains the highest numbered stream identifier for which the sender of the GOAWAY frame has received frames on and might have taken some action on.  All streams up to and including the identified stream might have been processed in some way.  The last stream identifier is set to 0 if no streams were processed. </ins> Note: In this case, "processed" means that some data from the stream was passed to some higher layer of software that might have taken some action as a result. <del> If a connection terminates without a GTFO frame, this value is </del> <ins> If a connection terminates without a GOAWAY frame, this value is </ins> effectively the highest stream identifier. On streams with lower or equal numbered identifiers that were not

Related discussion:
text: For those that prefer GTFO, please explain how it is clearer than GOAWAY (please consider an international audience too).
so mean spirited, this change.
Could always name it SHUTDOWN (yay SCTP) , Adrian Cole EMAIL:
"International audience" here. I'm Armenian, English isn't my native language, not even my 2nd language. GTFO to me is more meaningful and more concise than GOAWAY, or any other option mentioned in the comments. GTFO to me doesn't produce any confusion and its actual definition of "General Termination of Future Operations" is actually nice, smart, and descriptive rather than "surprising" in any negative sense. It also formally de-crasses the word. Of course you can tell me that I'm just a single example, but then again you can tell that to any amount of people. Pretty much the only valid argument out of the posted ones is that GTFO is crass (see I didn't know what "crass" meant before reading this). Everything else about descriptiveness and understandability by "international audience" are in my opinion totally irrelevant and unfair.
NAME thanks for the internationalization datapoint and on-topic discussion! Can you elaborate on how GOAWAY is not clear, and how GTFO is clearer? To me, the main argument is that GTFO is not meaningfully more clear than GOAWAY.
If folks have serious contributions to make, they should be on the mailing list, not here, as per URL Now I get to try out NAME
NAME START
NAME Neither option is appropriate or clear... they're both childish choices and neither are semantically appropriate. I've seen some much better options in this thread. if this change were actually about caring about professionalism, clarity of meaning, or necessity, the innumerable amount of better choices (SHUTDOWN, ENDCONNECTION, QUENCH, etc...) should have been used over GOAWAY or GTFO... But its not.. this is about personal preference. this change made nothing better, it made nothing worse. In my opinion, for that reason, it should be reverted.
FWIW, and for lack of anyone else talking about a pro of GTFO. When at the working group, a lot of thick topics were discussed at length and everyone there seemed 100% dedicated to having the best spec there is.