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

Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:37:19 -0700
Message-ID: <53569ABF.2080708@fb.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04/21/2014 09:08 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> As long the server waits >1RTT after sending the first GOAWAY before
> identifying the *real* last request, isn't that enough?
So the first GOAWAY acknowledges the last stream seen + 
2*MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS and then 1 RTT later the server sends a second 
GOAWAY with the actual last seen stream? This seems like it could work 
in practice, but RTT isn't always stable so it seems like this mechanism 
could be flaky.

The 2xGOAWAY approach would result in a smaller diff to the spec though. 
We would just need to add some text about expecting 2 GOAWAYs where the 
first GOAWAY may acknowledge a stream id greater than any initiated stream.

However, from an implementation point of view I think a new frame is 
more straight forward and less error prone. With the new frame, you 
don't have to measure RTT or do arithmetic. DRAINING is a completely 
empty frame. In both solutions 2 frames are sent, but with a new frame 
type, the purpose of the two frames is more clear.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 16:37:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC