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

Re: Question on HTTP 408

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 00:04:00 +0200
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matt Menke <mmenke@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <20140604220400.GK3154@1wt.eu>
Hi Michael,

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 05:00:52PM -0400, Michael Sweet wrote:
> Willy,
> 
> I can go along with a 408 (and only a 408) response being sent by a server
> right before a connection is torn down due to inactivity.  Document this as
> "the server MAY send a 408 response prior to closing a connection and a
> client SHOULD use the presence of a 408 response as an indication that the
> request should be retried" or something along those lines, with the
> discussion below distilled to the critical bits.

Concerning the second part of the sentence, I think that the existing text
already covers it (though it uses MAY instead of SHOULD as we shouldn't
dictate to the client how it needs to handle the retry I guess) :

   "If the client has an outstanding request in transit, the
    client MAY repeat that request on a new connection."

> We should also be clear
> that this problem is most pronounced when using small inactivity timeouts.

I think that it might be worth mentionning it, yes, so that clients decide
whether or not they want to implement it depending on their target use case.
Eg: maybe your cups client does not have any benefit in retrying in such a
case (I have not idea, just an example).

Regards,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 22:04:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC