- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 09:45:20 -0700
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Jesse Wilson <jesse@swank.ca>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfuYP4NKZ=5EP2Gtrw4UozGNjgq08nP1N3ATdfBGnvj5g@mail.gmail.com>
Getting a response before the request has finished definitely happens sometimes, even in HTTP/1.1 -=R On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:27:45AM -0600, Jesse Wilson wrote: > > Here???s an HTTP/2 scenario that we ran into > > <https://github.com/square/okhttp/issues/929> with OkHttp??? > > > > 1. Our client POSTs a large image. In this case, large means ???larger > > than the configured initial window size???. > > 2. The server reads our request headers and sends a response (headers > + > > body) immediately. The response includes an END_STREAM flag, > indicating > > that no further response body frames are expected. > > 3. The client continues to upload the request. > > 4. The client upload exhausts the window and stalls. > > 5. The server never sends a RST_STREAM or WINDOW_UPDATE frame, so the > > client eventually times out. > > > > What???s interesting??? > > > > The server sent its complete response before the request completed. > > Thinking in HTTP/1.1, I hadn???t anticipated this possibility. The > response > > code was 500, which suggests a crash in the server somewhere. Should the > > spec mention this possibility? What are the obligations on the client in > > this case? What would it mean for a server to return a 200 response to a > > POST-in-progress? > > A 200 is not that common in this scenario, however 301/302 are fairly > common there (eg: session timed out, redirect to the home page). In 1.1, > it's said that the server should drain all the client's data to avoid > the problem of sending an RST to the client, and that the client should > stop uploading if it sees the connection is closed (which generally > happens after a redirect to another domain). We need to ensure we handle > this case gracefully in HTTP/2 as well. > > > The error also caused the server to lose our stream. This is a partition > in > > the CAP sense, and timeouts are the client???s failsafe to detect this. > > HTTP/2 can suffer partitions in the application layer! > > ??? > > Regards, > Willy > > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 16:45:47 UTC