W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Persistent connection timeout

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:02:45 +1300
Message-ID: <4B195CD5.30601@qbik.com>
To: Fred Bohle <Fred.Bohle@progress.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

We (WinGate) just close the socket.

Sending another response is incorrect and probably risky for reasons you 
point out.

I've never seen another spurious response on idle timeout.



Fred Bohle wrote:
>     We support a web server on z/OS mainframes.  In this product, we 
> support HTTP 1.1 persistent connections.  We routinely return a 
> response with Connection: Keep-Alive headers.  If the connection 
> remains idle for a while, we simply close the connection.
>     Now I am getting a request to change this behavior.  I am being 
> asked, after the idle timeout,  to send an EXTRA response, with a 
> Connection: Close header.  This seems odd to me.  Sending an extra 
> response seems like it introduces an instability:  If the client sends 
> a request at the same time as we are sending the extra response, the 
> client could think we processed the request, when we did not.
>     How do other servers handle the idle connection timeout? 
> Fred Bohle
> Progress Software

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 18:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC