W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Section 8.2

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 15:41:06 -0500 (CDT)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960531153819.21317B-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/634
On Fri, 31 May 1996, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

>     'HTTP/1.1 servers SHOULD maintain persistent connections and use TCPs 
>     flow control mechanisms to resolve temporary overloads, rather than 
>     terminating connections with the expectation that clients will retry. 
>     The latter technique can exacerbate network congestion.'
>     On a practical note; how do I distinguish between an idle client, a dead 
>     client, and one that is avoiding network congestion? Should the standard 
>     give some guidelines?
> Actually, the real question is "how do I distinguish between an idle
> client, a dead client, and one that can no longer be reached over
> the network?"  (Network congestion tends to result in slow but not
> totally failed communication.)
> The answer to the real question is "you can't, so don't bother to try."
> Treat them all the same: when you get tired of waiting, give up.  Many
> servers seem to use a timeout of about 20 minutes for this.
Is this a typo?  Wouldn't 20 seconds be more appropriate?
That's what I use by default, though actually I vary it in some
circumstances.  I suspect in the future servers may have heuristics
to pick this time.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Friday, 31 May 1996 13:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC