Code change:
This is almost a straight revert of the various GOAWAY -> GTFO changes. It seems like this is the popular move as per the discussion on the httpbis mailing list. Arguments for the revert: GOAWAY is self-descriptive and serves it purpose well. Editorial changes that don't clearly improve the spec should be discouraged so we can reach a stable spec sooner (granted this change doesn't affect the wire at all, but documentation churn counts too). GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards. GTFO, if it really stands for "General Termination of Future Operations," has a surprising definition and may produce confusion. We should strive for absolute clarity above all else in editorial changes.
Boo! You guys are no fun.
goaway is just as bad as gtfo for the same reasons as the argument against gtfo... just called it disconnectclient or endcommunication if you're going to be a grumplestiltskin.
QUENCH may be a better, more descriptive word that has been used before in RFC's (for TCP Source Quench messages)
I think we should call it BIKESHED. , Sean McElroy EMAIL:
Here we go.. useless HN circle jerk.
:cat2:
How about STFU?
Boo!
:-1:
This commit should be reverted. It's time we stop behaving like oversensitive automatons and display the beautiful human quality that is a sense of humor every once in a while.
^ this
^ that
how about something like PLZSTOP? it's slightly humorous, but it actually reflects what is wanted (if I understood the spec correctly)
GOAWAY is clearer for non-native English speakers, easier to pronounce, and more professionally appropriate than the common connotational definition of GTFO. There are times and places for pushing the boundaries of professional speech, but the HTTP2 spec isn't one of them.
At least the pendulum didn't swing the other way NICETALKINGTOYOU
This revert is for the express purpose of stopping endless bikeshedding. We shouldn't encourage trivial changes to frame names. If the name is good enough, it should stay. I'm all for fun and games, but clarity and concision (as well as spec stability) come first. 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. GTFO, as a word, is harmless to implementation for reasons including the opcode is the same. IOTW, the binary representation is the same. There's no technical reason why it matters. I am one of the implementors of this specification. When the change was suggested towards GTFO, I felt motivated I mean the audience of this spec are implementors, some of which may be uptight about crassness others less so. If you look at github (ps this is on github) there's ample evidence that implementors are motivated by words that aren't boring. For example, there's a popular package manager called "fpm". Guess what that stands for? I'm not saying go back and re-word everything to be fresh, rather have patience with those who are literally implementing this, in open source, and are ok with the choice. Expect many more implementors to arise from github, a place relatively unburdened by crass-ness or location.
NAME I'll split the answer to 2 sections. AWAY vs. Out -- AWAY implies a certain longish physical distance, whereas Out seems to imply just "out". AWAY vs "General Termination of Future Operations" -- obviously the second is much more clear and descriptive.
GTFO would be my vote. No future operations, full connection termination, it describes the action best.
NAME if you feel strongly, mail on this thread as not everyone there are on github to see your pov URL
NAME - will do, thanks. I need to dig my W3C mailing list info; haven't used it in years. Cheers!
From the W3C mailing list: Thanks, NAME :) Cheers!
All made points aside, I couldn't find a very important one; to me actually being the most important. If you think about what "Get Out!" could also mean (the offensive TF part is actually interchangable...), it becomes even more confusing. An expression of disbelief is surely the very last thing this acronym should imply. But it did to me; even as a non-native speaker (German). "General Termination of Future Operations" is, also in my eyes, a made-up term to fit the joke. It is more fitting than GOAWAY, but once you have read GTFO your mind is sort of made up, since you spelled GTFO in full in your head, as soon as reading the acronym. My suggestion on this one is: Simply get rid of "General" / "G" and add "of" to the acronym! TOFO still has a nice ring to it, is quick and easy to pronounce and "Termination Of Future Operations" would be sufficiant descriptive. regards (yes, that's my real lastname :P ) On Jan 29, 2014 8:31 AM, "Eugene Ciurana" EMAIL wrote:

Related discussion:
text: 6.8. <del> A General Termination of Future Operations (GTFO) frame (type=0x7) informs the remote peer to stop creating streams on this connection. GTFO can be sent by either client or server.  Once sent, the sender will ignore frames sent on new streams for the remainder of the connection.  Receivers of a GTFO frame MUST NOT open additional streams on the connection, although a new connection can be established for new streams.  The purpose of this frame is to allow an endpoint to gracefully stop accepting new streams (perhaps for a reboot or maintenance), while still finishing processing of previously established streams. </del> <ins> The GOAWAY frame (type=0x7) informs the remote peer to stop creating streams on this connection.  It can be sent from the client or the server.  Once sent, the sender will ignore frames sent on new streams for the remainder of the connection.  Receivers of a GOAWAY frame MUST NOT open additional streams on the connection, although a new connection can be established for new streams.  The purpose of this frame is to allow an endpoint to gracefully stop accepting new streams (perhaps for a reboot or maintenance), while still finishing processing of previously established streams. </ins> There is an inherent race condition between an endpoint starting new <del> streams and the remote sending a GTFO frame.  To deal with this case, the GTFO frame contains the stream identifier of the last stream </del> <ins> streams and the remote sending a GOAWAY frame.  To deal with this case, the GOAWAY contains the stream identifier of the last stream </ins> which was processed on the sending endpoint in this connection.  If <del> the receiver of the GTFO frame used streams that are newer than the </del> <ins> the receiver of the GOAWAY used streams that are newer than the </ins> indicated stream identifier, they were not processed by the sender and the receiver may treat the streams as though they had never been created at all (hence the receiver may want to re-create the streams later on a new connection). <del> Endpoints SHOULD always send a GTFO frame before closing a connection so that the remote can know whether a stream has been partially processed or not.  For example, if an HTTP client sends a POST at the same time that a server closes a connection, the client cannot know if the server started to process that POST request if the server does not send a GTFO frame to indicate where it stopped working.  An endpoint might choose to close a connection without sending GTFO for misbehaving peers. </del> <ins> Endpoints SHOULD always send a GOAWAY frame before closing a connection so that the remote can know whether a stream has been partially processed or not.  For example, if an HTTP client sends a POST at the same time that a server closes a connection, the client cannot know if the server started to process that POST request if the server does not send a GOAWAY frame to indicate where it stopped working.  An endpoint might choose to close a connection without sending GOAWAY for misbehaving peers. </ins> <del> After sending a GTFO frame, the sender can discard frames for new </del> <ins> After sending a GOAWAY frame, the sender can discard frames for new </ins> streams.  However, any frames that alter connection state cannot be completely ignored.  For instance,