- From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:23:33 +0000
- To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB27084BCB2DD7A163621BD90E87470@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Some assorted reasons show up in the discussion at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQKZIiecqDE&list=PLC86T-6ZTP5i0Bp03yAK5oWrxMMwBjIq7&index=109 starting around 1:15:30. Scale, I’m not sure; Patrick had the direct experience and might be able to tell more. From: Wenbo Zhu [mailto:wenboz@google.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 7:17 PM To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt > "with some sites even requiring browsers to retry POST requests in order to properly interoperate" Do we know the exact reason (and scale) behind such a behavior? On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com<mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>> wrote: > On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org<mailto:tombergan@chromium.org>> wrote: > > > Applications sometimes want requests to be retried by > > infrastructure, but can't easily express them in a non-idempotent > > request (such as GET). > > nit: did you mean "in an idempotent request (such as GET)"? > > > A client SHOULD NOT automatically retry a failed automatic retry. > > Why does RFC 7230 say this? I am aware of HTTP clients that completely ignore this suggestion, and I can't offhand think of a reason why this is a good rule-of-thumb to follow. This is only referring to retries due to a dropped connection. The reason is because a second connection drop is (in almost all cases) due to the request itself, as opposed to something transient on the network path. [BTW, this doesn't refer to requests yet to be sent in a request queue or pipeline -- just the retried request in flight for which no response is received prior to FIN/RST (or equivalent).] There might be a good reason to go ahead and retry with an exponential back-off, but I don't know what that would be in general. I know lots of clients do stupid things because they are afraid of communicating server errors to their user. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2017 04:24:08 UTC