Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4351)

On 13/05/2015 8:38 a.m., Barry Leiba wrote:
>> This *was* discussed extensively on-list and we came to consensus; those
>> who are proposing a change here should familiarise themselves with the issues:
>> … and related list discussion, starting here:
>> … and continuing here:
>> Even if there does turn out to be an interop problem here, I'm having trouble
>> seeing how what's being proposed will fit into what the IETF considers to be
>> an erratum.
> Indeed.  For me, it's a question of whether this should be resolved as
> "Rejected" or "Held for Document Update".  I think "Rejected", because
> even if this is an issue that should be revisited, the errata system
> isn't meant as an issue tracker.  And it's clear that this doesn't
> fall into the category of errata.
> Regardless of whether the issue needs to be looked at again: does
> anyone really think that, from an errata-system standpoint, this
> should NOT be "Rejected"?

I have at least one client with a solid use-case for Transfer-Encoding
use on CONNECT. So would prefer Document Update.

Specifically: two proxies relaying CONNECT messages between them in high
performance environment where the TCP_WAIT timouts after closing a
connection are unbearable.

In this situation simply using Transfer-Encoding:chunked and keep-alive
to specify from proxyA what bytes are the opaque data for the CONNECT
handled by proxyB allows a much higher throughput than HTTP/1.1 compliance.


Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 07:07:52 UTC