W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: HTTP/2.0 Magic

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:56:21 -0800 (PST)
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1302221549540.8653@egate.xpasc.com>

As I understand this series of tests, you did an initial probe of servers 
with FOO\r\n

And continued testing with only those servers which TIMEDout in the first
test. I think that it might be a risky conclusion that every unrecognized
probe would receive the same quick CLOSE response. 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Yep, will try to get to that tomorrow; just wanted to start driving the discussion with data today.
> 
> Of course, the source is in github, so you can do that while I sleep, if you like :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> On 21/02/2013, at 8:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:46:20PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> One more little experiment; the "first" request, followed by something that a settings frame might look like: 
> >> 
> >> FOO * HTTP/2.0\r\n\r\n\x80\x00\x00\x04\x80\x00\x00\x00
> >>  31177 CLOSE
> >>    298 CONN_ERR
> >>   3673 TIMEOUT
> >> 
> >> Not too bad.
> > 
> > Mark, it would be nice to first check how many timeouts we get
> > from these severs using perfectly valid requests, as I suspect
> > some of them randomly fail because they might be overloaded.
> > 
> > Willy
> > 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 23:56:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 23:56:59 GMT