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

Re: Lingering Close

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:13:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqHcBFP-4qv4N8TEyXQEttg1rfZzZ7K+ob8jHAV_4czcLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 01:24:15PM -0600, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> Thanks Willy, I think I get what you mean by now. FIN should be
>> initiated by server to avoid the TIME_WAIT problem. Therefore the
>> half-close step is important.
> exactly.
>> The current text makes perfect sense to me now.
> With this in mind, do you think that something in the text should be
> updated for future readers ?

The text gives motivation for draining (to avoid RST), it probably
should give motivation for half-close as well. The text may become too
long and out of scope, but I agree with Jamie Lokier that it's better
to warn implementers about the issues.

Also, I would probably use a different word than "linger"; at first
read I though it means kernel's lingering.

>> Unfortunately, this lingering close process cannot be implemented on
>> top of some APIs; these APIs don't do transparent lingering close upon
>> close() either. But it is their fault, not the spec's.
> Indeed. However the fallback to full close with the kernel's lingering is
> still working in practice. Just not perfectly reliable.
> Regards,
> Willy
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 21:13:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC