- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:01:11 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNephB9sdsqLV9O8h-O3aaA_PQvfUPrtswXU5KJW6ySiVA@mail.gmail.com>
DRAINING differs from ALTSVC mostly in that it requires no state be kept. Otherwise, I believe ALTSVC can be used to drain things so long as it is worded such that an ALTSVC to the same location causes a new connection to be created. -=R On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > The shutting down state machine currently looks something like this: > > accepting requests > --[GOAWAY]-> not accepting requests > --[TCP FIN]-> closed > > And during the "not accepting requests" state, it may be that some > requests are lost. You will have to check that each request made it. > > I proposed (and Daniel provided pull #475) to not change this state > machine, but to exploit the nature of the first transition, and > repeating the GOAWAY frame. > > Roberto would prefer that we create a new state in the flow: > > accepting requests > --[DRAINING]-> about to stop accepting requests > --[GOAWAY]-> not accepting requests > --[TCP FIN]-> closed > > I note that this DRAINING frame looks similar in function to ALTSVC. > > If this summary is accurate, and in the absence of new information, I > think that the best plan for this is to close at the interim, once we > have more feedback from implementations. > >
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 22:01:38 UTC