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

Re: Graceful shutdown #458

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:42:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeBN7yAEzFNW=yBjM0tvvaYLnqWDPfuyKJ0S0N17YcZdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
That'd probably work. I'd be a bit worried about someone always sending
ALTSVC <policy> on every connection (since that is easy), but if policy is
self, it could cause some interesting effects.
DRAINING is probably easier to use than ALTSVC for things like that.

In the end, I'm probably fine either way, I'm sure we can get it right. I
just don't want to be afraid of adding an opcode if that achieves better


On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 8 May 2014 15:01, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DRAINING differs from ALTSVC mostly in that it requires no state be kept.
> True, equivalent to ALTSVC with ma=0, I guess.
> > 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.
> I think that we'd definitely need that wording.  Would that work for you?
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 22:42:59 UTC

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