W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: Shouldn't we add a new CLOSING state in H2 ?

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:39:44 +0100
To: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@shimmercat.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20190125043944.GB21280@1wt.eu>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:31:32PM +0100, Alcides Viamontes E wrote:
> > We could imagine a lot of dirty time-based workarounds for this, but
> they would only steer the problem to another area.
> We had to go the way of the dirty time-based workarounds to implement
> seamless reloads, and unless all user-agents implement a solution at once,
> I don't think we can get rid of them :-( ...

So I have another idea that I'll see if I can implement for this specific
case of the seamless reload operation : the server could send a PING to
the client after the last frame of the last stream, and wait for the
PING/ACK to come back. Once it gets it, it will know that all data frames
were properly received. Some implementations might let the PING/ACK frame
leave faster than WINDOW_UPDATES (which is not really an issue). But we
could as well emit a SETTINGS frame with SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0
and wait for the ACK, eventhough in my opinion it will be equivalent.

I'll see how far I can go with this. But I'm definitely interested in
trying to address the stream state synchronization between both ends

Received on Friday, 25 January 2019 04:40:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 January 2019 04:40:10 UTC