W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: GOAWAY and proxies

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:08:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcx0_-XEuJmrMn3=HPg7akihuqCMpLmeHfk6m-1qJbKHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It helps Daniels case if the server is smart enough to begin doing alt-svc
redirecting before it goes down (i.e. it enters a period where it shifts
traffic away while processing the traffic it had been given previously).
Of course, I could be misinterpreting, but this is the retry-failure case
that I'm familiar with!
-=R


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 10 April 2014 16:50, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll note that REFUSED_STREAM doesn't actually solve the problem
> entirely,
> > since it does require the user (not just the proxy) to retry.
>
> Indeed.  But each hop is given that choice (retry this request, or
> fail back to my client).
>
> > It is hoped that alt-svc (potentially to the same name) will give us the
> > ability to have the client (proxy or not) reconnect to a new server (and
> > thus there should be no need for a LAME_DUCK given that mechanism).
>
> I don't think that helps Daniel's case, just the more general one.
>
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 00:09:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC