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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 07:42:39 +0800
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E7F1F9F3@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
> Adrien writes:
> I don't see what the difference is between a new proxy connection
> returning a 504 (e.g. the proxy can't connect to the server) vs proxy
> reporting 504 connection aborted on an old connection before the proxy
> could send the request to the server.

That's not the scenario that this mechanism seeks to avoid.  The idea is that a new connection is less likely to time out during the (non-idempotent) request than one that has been sitting idle for a while.  This is a hop-by-hop thing.  

Obviously, if the request was going to fail anyway (at any hop), there's no gain.
> > To the extent that it ensures that the connection remains open, sure.
> You still need to know when the 1xx is required.
> >
> Sure, that could use the same heuristics at the server that a client
> would use.

We seek to do away with such heuristics.  They are brittle and inefficient.

> Adrien
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 23:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC