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

Re: GOAWAY and proxies (#458)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 20:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVUsy4rwYdDX0NX76xBRCcaFHhUOb3rHnYyR8tUh+rYrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 May 2014 15:30, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> The way our code works right now is, on receipt of a GOAWAY, we put
> ourselves in a lame duck mode and kill all streams above the last accepted
> stream id with an error code to retry them. If we're already in the lame
> duck mode, great. We don't track anything about previous accepted stream
> ids.

Perfect.  No extra logic.  If you get an extra GOAWAY, you might kill
a few more requests.

What does the extra explicitness of DRAINING actually buy?
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2014 03:36:41 UTC

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