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

Re: Question on HTTP 408

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 10:13:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqH-7=2h0kC9b1A0GjFxSEWEkbBCvnMXvRye9P+KcoBbwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Matt Menke <mmenke@chromium.org>
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

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