- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:13:03 -0600
- 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