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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:30:44 -0700
Cc: Martin Thomson <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AB8D0EAB-7AAE-48B3-BB7F-D5A62B54D165@mnot.net>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Yes, but see my other points -- I don't think the information is particularly useful. AFAICT there's only one really significant bit of information here -- "I intend to long-poll."

On 30/06/2010, at 2:02 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:

> On 30 June 2010 02:46, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to think that passing specific timeout values from the client to the server isn't useful, and sometimes dangerous (because it will encourage creation of race conditions). The vast majority of intermediaries (whether HTTP, NAT, etc.) will NOT change this value according to their configuration, and so its value can't be trusted.
> Part of the idea of this mechanism is to give the intermediaries a
> mechanism where they can actively signal their intent. I'm guessing
> that current intermediaries do not signal their intent mostly because
> there is no mechanism fo r them to do so, not because of any
> unwillingness to do so.
> regards

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 01:31:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC