Re: Question on HTTP 408

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 06:24:19PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> We could argue that unprompted 408 is beneficial for most requests (of
>> moderate size). However, if browsers need to be patched to take
>> advantage of 408, they are better off to spend the effort to handle
>> the more general case - proactively poll the inbound, discard the
>> connection immediately if anything is received without a request
>> (mostly FIN).
>
> I completely agree that if any change needs to be applied, the first
> one is to check the inbound first, eventhough I can understand that
> it's easier to say than to apply to any existing code which was

agreed.

> architected based on a different sequencing. It will cover most use
> cases and will only leave open the race where the server decides to
> close at the same time the client decides to send. That said, when
> you look at Matt's patches to make Chromium aware of the 408, I don't
> think it would represent a huge effort to adjust clients to correctly
> consider it.

ok. It seems harmless that servers send "psychic" responses ahead of
requests. Besides 408, other codes may also qualify, like 503.

>
> Regards,
> Willy
>

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2014 15:14:17 UTC