- 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>
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 UTC