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

Re: Encouraging a healthy HTTP/2 ecosystem

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 22:55:26 +0200
To: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140701205526.GH22160@1wt.eu>
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:46:15PM -0400, Johnny Graettinger wrote:
> >
> > As I said above, all that dangerously complicated stuff for a dead
> >
> connection anyway is not worth it. Better kill the connection and restart
> > with something sane if needed.
> 
> 
> If HAProxy is speaking HTTP/2 to backend application servers, and I can get
> an application server to send a response with more than 16K of headers,
> doesn't that give me an easy way to tear-down any other active stream to
> that server?

In 1.1 it would return 502 bad gateway. In 2.0, assuming I manage to implement
it to the server, I don't expect it to be able to multiplex multiple streams
over a single connection before we've finished HTTP/3. I'm serious. 2.0 is a
major architecture change for low-level intermediaries. So I'd say that for
now, with the elements I have, a protocol error on 2.0 will be handled the
same way as in 1.1 : the connection will be torn down and the effects will be
exactly the same : only the request using that connection will be impacted.

I'm not saying nothing better could be done, of course. But at least for me
right now it's not obvious :-/

Willy
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 20:55:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:19 UTC