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

Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:46:25 +0100
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20131121094625.GA15890@1wt.eu>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:34:01AM +0200, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > > - 101 response is given, followed by HTTP/1.1 4xx/5xx error.
> > 
> > Yes when the client pushes data to the server, believing the channel
> > is clean. Generally a "400 bad request" or a "408 request timeout"
> > can happen if the middlebox waits for a second valid request. This
> > is the reason why in WS I preferred that we put "connection:close"
> > in the exchanges (to incite middleboxes to close when non-compliant),
> > but since I failed to make up that specific case again, I could not
> > defend it anymore :-)
> 
> The process I considered to cause this was more like:
> 
> The middlebox passes the upgrade but doesn't process it (also passing
> the 101). Thinks that the connection is still HTTP/1.1. Then the client
> sends connnection magic, which of course causes things blows up...

We're in sync. But if the 101 response contained "connection: close",
the middlebox would most often propagate the close to the client and
refrain from reading anything else. It's not rocket science though.

Willy
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 09:47:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC