- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:14:05 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
How about changing the Subject: on this thread? Thanks, On 21/11/2013, at 8:46 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > 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 > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 03:14:29 UTC