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

Re: GOAWAY and proxies

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:49:49 -0700
Message-ID: <534E988D.3070204@fb.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roberto, can you be more specific about how the proxy and server 
interact to redirect traffic using Alt-Svc? Since in this case the 
client is speaking HTTP/1.1, are you suggesting that the proxy treat the 
Alt-Svc as a hop-by-hop feature? My understanding is that this is an 
end-to-end feature.

On 04/10/2014 05:08 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> 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 <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On 10 April 2014 16:50, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com
>     <mailto: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 Wednesday, 16 April 2014 14:50:19 UTC

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