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

Re: REFUSED_STREAM => RETRY_STREAM (editorial) was: RE: hpack table size 0

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:33:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_iSbvd1dVpLe2cTDvzzSeEg=mxHqqNrO8s+yZcLvOfxvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
could also be refused because that particular server is shutting down
and is thus "unwilling"

re-issuing it to the same virtual host may result in a server more "willing"

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 August 2014 02:44,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
>> The definition of REFUSED_STREAM is somewhat contradictory with the
>> definition of the word refused. The word refused is defined as: indicate or
>> show that one is *not willing* to do something [1]. The definition of
>> REFUSED_STREAM in Section 7 references section 8.1.4 which says that a
>> REFUSED_STREAM is safe to retry. In other words the server is actually
>> *willing* to process the stream, but *currently unable* (e.g. because the
>> client overran settings and so the client needs to retry the stream with the
>> new settings).
>
> I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment.  Does anyone else?
>
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 17:34:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC