- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:19:46 +0100
- To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 04:23:33AM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> 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.
Thanks for the link, Mike, that was quite an interesting talk! For haproxy
I planned to have an action to let the admin indicate that if certain
criteria match, then a request is idempotent. For example, a POST request
containing a transactionId argument, etc... I'm realizing that stuff like
this could be proposed to be generalized instead of having to be made
specific to each and every component. In short what is needed (from my
perspective) is :
- a way for the application to signal the client that a request will
be idempotent (could be either by adding a specific field to HTML
forms, or passing a header field in the HTTP response saying that
the exact same URI is safe for POSTs, etc).
- a way for the client to notify the chain back to the origin that
it's safe to replay the current request based on the info learned
from the application. That could simply be a header field or a
value added to a header field such as :
content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; safe
Just my 2 cents,
Willy
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2017 07:20:24 UTC