Re: GOAWAY(AND_DONT_COME_BACK)

On 18 June 2013 15:23, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> wrote:
> Is this sufficiently different from PROTOCOL_ERROR that it is needed (I view
> that as the why, as opposed to what to do)? If not, should we have
> suggestions about appropriate behavior in response to PROTOCOL_ERROR?

In my view, this is very much in the same bucket as the proposed
COME_BACK code.  The motivation is basically sound.  Both require that
a client observe a particular GOAWAY code and amend their behavior for
a subsequent connection to the server.  Both require that we set
expectations around the scope of the guidance, both in time and the
servers that are affected.

Personally, I don't see a good incentive for a client implementation
to add this feature.  However, I can understand why a client might
choose to implement COME_BACK, even though the incentives aren't
exactly clear there either.  Once you have COME_BACK, this might be a
less onerous addition to a client implementation.  Maybe.  I'd like to
hear from people building clients as to how hard they believe that
this would be to implement.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 22:33:09 UTC