Re: Review of draft-thomson-http-replay-latest

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 02:39:13PM +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 8 August 2017 at 08:07, David Benjamin <> wrote:
> > If the server is really overloaded, it can send HTTP 503. But I'm guessing
> > 503 triggers a sharper client back-off than you like in this scenario.
> > Perhaps you're only sort-of-overloaded and retrying at 1-RTT is fine? As you
> > say, a sort-of-overloaded server could reject 0-RTT at the TLS level
> > instead. Though perhaps you have GET /cheap_thing that you are still willing
> > to respond to.
> I think that the advice we give there is that if you *might* send a
> different response from different nodes, then 503 isn't right and 4NN
> (Too Early) is better, even if it means less backing off.
> You could probably make a case that returning 503 is consistent - it
> depends on server state that is independent of whether the request is
> replayed.

With that said, I think we could suggest that a client should possibly
stop using 0-RTT for a while with a server exhibiting 5xx responses or
connection resets, because this means the server is unreliable or
possibly overloaded and 0-RTT may participate to increase this load if
the server has to respond 4NN a lot (ie it is required to process twice
the amount of requests).


Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 05:41:37 UTC