- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:30:49 +0100
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alvaro Lopez Ortega <alvaro@alobbs.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 12:19:07PM -0600, Zhong Yu wrote: > 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 > connection. > > ... > > 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. Indeed I remember about those painful days. However, the paragraph above simply encourages to use the feature with care. This means that those who want to implement it have to understand what it means. I think this is fine as is. Willy
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 18:31:18 UTC