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 10:35:32 -0700
Message-ID: <5356A864.3040106@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 04/22/2014 10:01 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I'm not sure that the problem is any different. You still have to 
> ensure that you wait long enough after sending DRAINING before you 
> send the GOAWAY (the above math is exactly the same). The difference 
> is that for a client, two GOAWAY frames are treated exactly the same, 
> i.e., clients don't need two code paths. 
OK that sounds reasonable. I'm sure you were planning this already, but 
we should be explicit that the first GOAWAY with extra acknowledged 
streams does not imply the client can continue to open new streams up to 
that stream id.

I couldn't find any text in the spec for how to process multiple GOAWAY 
frames. This can actually happen today, apart from this proposal, if 
some connection level error happens on the final stream(s) after a 
GOAWAY NO_ERROR. Just to keep in mind while drafting the new text.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 17:36:02 UTC

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