W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: #1: Upgrade proposals [was: Call for Proposals re: #314]

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:05:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXUkxcfKC3TnWuMdjhiK0PjK5PuUFFD+b1OWj_8ksqHJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, 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>
On 21 November 2013 19:14, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> 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.

Wasn't there some guidance that came out of the websockets work to
this effect already?  I believe that Connection:close was something
that was found to be useful in both directions.  Sadly, the 101 can
sometimes be interpreted as being informational by the intermediary,
whereupon it has trouble identifying the final response.  Adding a
server prologue that starts with 5xx GTFO\r\nConnection:close\r\n\r\n
might help, but is that overkill?
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 18:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC