W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:28:31 +1300
Message-ID: <4F21630F.5050308@qbik.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org


On 27/01/2012 3:11 a.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 02:05:56PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message<20120126140301.GG8887@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>>
>>> OK, but in the context I said that, we were talking about chunking.
>>> And this is still true. A chunked-encoded transfer that does not end
>>> with the last 0-byte chunk *is* always an indication of a truncate.
>> Yes, absolutely.  I just wish there were a way to end the transmission
>> and say: "Sorry, that went awry, but we can still use this connection.
> The only solution I can think of would be to send padding up to the
> current chunk size

only if you're mid-chunk when you decide that the chunk you started 
sending you don't want to any more.

Maybe you shouldn't have decided to send it if you weren't ready.

> and advertise "0" with some extension to indicate
> the wish to reuse the connection. But I really think that the cost of
> handling all impacts of a failed connections sensibly offsets the small
> expected gain for these rare conditions.

Sure the number of reset connections is very small, and you can't 
advertise anything anyway since you can't send any more.

This is only useful when you want to abort, and you can do so on any 
chunk boundary.  Those that wish to use this can tweak their code to 
make it effective, those that don't or just want to pass stuff through, 
that's fine.

But checking for attributes on the final 0 chunk seems to me to be a 
cheap way to get the benefit of abort when you want it.

I'd suggest the number of aborted sends due to content would outweigh 
network errors.

But anyway, it's a basic principle, if you make a decision that affects 
another party, you should communicate it.  If you can't you can't, but 
you shouldn't say "Because I can't ALWAYS communicate it, I will choose 
instead to NEVER do it".  That's sociopathic :)


>
> Willy
>
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 14:30:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT