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

Re: Graceful shutdown #458

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 16:01:52 -0700
Message-ID: <536C0CE0.506@fb.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm not very keen on using ALTSVC to indicate a connection draining 
state. Especially since client implementation of alternative services is 
rather fuzzy (not much normative language in that spec), I'd rather 
stick to a mechanism where the client behavior is well understood and 
requires minimal changes to the spec.

I have a slight preference for GOAWAY over DRAINING. With DRAINING we 
gain added explicitness, but at the cost of verbosity (the state diagram 
would grow at least). The spec already establishes that multiple GOAWAYs 
can be received (NO_ERROR followed by some other error during the 
graceful connection shutdown), so I think the work we need to do here is 
minimal. Either mechanism is fine for me, and I'm happy to resolve this 
at the interim.
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 23:02:18 UTC

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