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

Re: HTTP/1.0 request - should the server close the connection after response?

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:19:07 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqF+tPFLBT-akD+Sr11eBZ+6OrM2wmKa355Eg=ZBs6GuEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro@alobbs.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thank you both. So, "Connection:keep-alive" in 1.0 is very dependable
in practice, server should keep the connection alive.

If that's the case, shouldn't we remove the alarming languages in
[part 1, A.1.2.]? They might be legitimate concerns in 1999, but no
longer relevant today.

   However, some experimental implementations of HTTP/1.0
   persistent connections are faulty; for example, if a HTTP/1.0 proxy
   server doesn't understand Connection, it will erroneously forward
   that header to the next inbound server, which would result in a hung


   Clients are also encouraged to consider the use of Connection: keep-
   alive in requests carefully; while they can enable persistent
   connections with HTTP/1.0 servers, clients using them need will need
   to monitor the connection for "hung" requests (which indicate that
   the client ought stop sending the header), and this mechanism ought
   not be used by clients at all when a proxy is being used.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro@alobbs.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 05:56 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:32:39AM -0600, Zhong Yu wrote:
>>> >  When an HTTP/1.1 server accepts an HTTP/1.0 request, should the server
>>> >  always close the connection after sending the response? That seems to
>>> >  be the safest way. While the server could try to keep the connection
>>> >  by checking for Connection: keep-alive, the spec suggests that it is
>>> >  problematic. What's your recommended best practice for this issue?
>> In haproxy we check for "Connection: keep-alive" in 1.0 and
>> "Connection: close" in 1.1 and I've never had any report of
>> unexpected behaviour by doing so.
> Same thing for the Cherokee Web Server. I believe it's the behavior that
> most of the servers and proxies implement.
> All the best,
> Alvaro
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 18:19:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC