- From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:01:43 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEk+uYisQBh0Ox_FSe1kzXFSj7X75akr2dzgnn+4wjeqw@mail.gmail.com>
I'm wondering if we need to say something about stream timeouts in the draft? With HTTP/1 most servers/clients/intermediaries will timeout connections if there is no IO activity for a period. Some will also apply a total timeout for a complete message to arrive. Section http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.4 describes how such timeouts are handled. With HTTP/2, the IO activity style timeout no longer applies, as there can be lots of IO activity on other streams while a particular stream is stalled forever. Total timeouts can still apply. So is section 3.4 sufficient to describe behaviour for h2? or should we also set some expectation as to the possible longevity (or otherwise) of inactive streams? Note that I can see at least one use-case for long held idle stream. Basically it is the long polling use-case of "protocol abuse". Frameworks will still long poll over http2 and would benefit from a bit more certainty over how long an idle stream can be expected to live. I can even imaging more creative protocol abuse where a long held stream is used to enable push promises to be sent, thus allowing arbitrary resources to be sent from server to client. -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2014 06:02:11 UTC