Code change:
Other fields: As described in canonical-object-fields. <del> An "OBJECT_PREFER_DATAGRAM" message carries a single object in a datagram or a stream.  There is no explicit length of the payload; it is determined by the length of the datagram or stream.  If this message appears on a stream, it MUST be the only message on a unidirectional stream. An Object received in an "OBJECT_PREFER_DATAGRAM" message has an "Object Forwarding Preference" = "Datagram". </del> <ins> An "OBJECT_DATAGRAM" message carries a single object in a datagram. There is no explicit length of the payload; it is determined by the length of the datagram. </ins> <del> To send an Object with "Object Forwarding Preference" = "Datagram", determine the length of the fields and payload, and compare the length with the maximum datagram size of the session.  If the object size is less than or equal maximum datagram size, send the serialized data as a datagram.  Otherwise, open a stream, send the serialized data and terminate the stream.  An implementation SHOULD NOT send an Object with "Object Forwarding Preference" = "Datagram" on a stream if it is possible to send it as a datagram. </del> <ins> An Object received in an "OBJECT_DATAGRAM" message has an "Object Forwarding Preference" = "Datagram".  To send an Object with "Object Forwarding Preference" = "Datagram", determine the length of the fields and payload and send the Object as datagram.  In certain scenarios where the object size can be larger than maximum datagram size for the session, the Object will be dropped. </ins> 6.3.3.

Related discussion:
text: To allow subscribers to indicate that no new subscriptions will be routed to the publisher for a given namespace. Happy to bikeshed on the name and whether we really need another frame for this.
The problem is not possible for the subscriber to reject an ANNOUNCE afterwards. This would be very useful, for example to inform a publisher that no more subscriptions will be routed to them for whatever reason. Examples: The auth parameter in ANNOUNCE has expired. Another publisher has sent an overriding ANNOUNCE (reconnect?) The broadcast has been closed remotely, ex. some moderation tool. Without this message, the only recourse for the subscriber is to close the connection. This won't work if multiple ANNOUNCE messages are pooled over the same connection, nor is it clean.
I propose two options: can be sent after . We add and to mirror . I personally hate 3 separate messages for a subscriber to close an announce, or a publisher to close a subscription. See
very trivial bikeshed comment ... I would prefer to call it something other RESET ( and also other places we use RESET ). I get the TCP analogy but I think that is the wrong way to think about this. I would prefer something like REVOKE.
how about ANNOUNCE_CANCEL to cancel an open announce ?
Conclusion is that we do need to add a new frame to end an ANNOUNCE. Additionally, there was a principle stated that we should not rely on closing the session as the typical or optimal way to close state and close either an ANNOUNCE or SUBSCRIBE.
On the call today, people tend to prefer ANNOUNCECLOSE over ANNOUNCECANCEL as a name. They also prefer merging SUBSCRIBERESET and SUBSCRIBEFIN into a single message, possibly SUBSCRIBE_CLOSE.
On an editorial note, it'd be nice to have subsections for publisher/subscriber to make it clearer to the reader.
If we're going to combine and , then we should just combine and now. My desire is to have four messages: publisher create: ANNOUNCE publisher close: UNANNOUNCE subscriber accept: ANNOUNCEOK subscriber close: ANNOUNCESTOP The same goes for subscriptions: subscriber create: SUBSCRIBE subscriber close: UNSUBSCRIBE publisher accept: SUBSCRIBEOK publisher close: SUBSCRIBESTOP