W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-loreto-http-timeout-00.txt

From: Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 12:01:32 +0800
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7F1F91F@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
Hi Adrien,

> There's quite a bit of overlap between the purpose of this I-D and the one I've been working on recently discussed on this list relating to progress notifications.

While I can see how the two proposals might interact (constructively), and the use cases might be similar, there is little actual overlap in mechanism.

The only potential for overlap would be if you were to make Connection-Timeout less than Timeout, which we specifically exclude.  Then, you would need a way to keep the connection alive and progress notifications could fill that role.

> 1. Why not use a 1xx response to keep the connection alive?

To which mechanism do you refer to?

For a Timeout, the intent is not to use this as a connection keep-alive or anything of that nature.  A 1xx response could be used if the request is _really_ long-lived (see above), but we're not there just yet: first we need to know how long this request might take.  Thus, the header.

For Connection-Timeout, the main use case is the idle connection where there is no outstanding request.  So you have no vehicle for the 1xx.

> 2. Is this a use case for allowing entities on a 1xx response?

I don't think so.  It probably would not play well with existing implementations [1], which is a bit of a deal breaker.


--Martin


[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.1 

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 04:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:20 GMT