Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt

Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> Sat, 11 February 2017 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC8F12955B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:20:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XIBfIe0226E1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFC43129489 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:20:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ccOBt-0002Zv-Ae for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 03:17:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 03:17:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ccOBt-0002Zv-Ae@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1ccOBn-0002ZA-NY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 03:17:31 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.161.173]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1ccOBg-0003WP-TC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 03:17:26 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v200so31248192ywc.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:17:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GmH2eGxPs5b5hoqZOxEi+rXuH3gbadat/HT+DQ1UKYA=; b=aaPGa1/iATc2bORbk/N9PIauIVCwRwkAO5owVorCeDGwULIfZgOxDEG85iUTWafgtT 9dB7UsbyQtFkF1F4x2qNV2uUNAMAbe+3MhDnnBxOzYSM2C3OcSvSYN0jFWd1TrQqu5B7 wtQkbI9s1r5WTPf3MBFB2g4HoAL+76KfQem70uJM6AaTdv4mdaKQUny8SeiBwcQ4m5e3 WzBswuegqp6Ume/kGdaRIpsjtrTtSGmgX/pV+dp0Jtp6zi0nrwWilhJb0EhO+QV2z8uE zxP8OlMCmX/jUQ40nlshSVsdvkKayw+UgJSRLyt+NWp4paThsgyKftS4IjW3LeaeI0xD WBSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GmH2eGxPs5b5hoqZOxEi+rXuH3gbadat/HT+DQ1UKYA=; b=D6KhNANXPgOLJexHKhyW+eaEjJvxhHeo92fZR/kjnNomO4nWuuQgntTqUwvI/4+j5S 8qumK/BK5fAqN33NelvSL7jEGZTZRhLl8b4F8YwXJeijHZpqT39tNRU1awCSnzgN1w8h 134vYOwp627Nu7bZYysb0E6j7LrFZzoqjZP2gX8c0uPC0WtF7XvWcTsDidD/z9z0+SCa HiqOBd4F/ml/mkilwbqNYBFYJ1pthl2k9dT37Yw0eN2CSC7896DdriLZXanJodBA2DwI NlAUN4tt0guROOlHgXDKrMuRuOYwTnJUU/DlLyprfrZvyEfn4c+YjayEIRJAqp6FXwk3 IIkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k7f7zztgPmQELYlaaaVgXHEGrbbteqjH2mcEdRJP8BDlvmBSAuELUmUW3OHvhgzcfGunBRieW/cMFNfGaM
X-Received: by 10.129.82.212 with SMTP id g203mr8868834ywb.107.1486783018196; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:16:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.64.16 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:16:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E26FEBDB-D09F-4A2D-A249-3E033A6C3070@gbiv.com>
References: <148593754312.24497.16311379877517350605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3F68DC4A-3AC8-4309-8119-15A82C5E1EFC@mnot.net> <CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com> <E26FEBDB-D09F-4A2D-A249-3E033A6C3070@gbiv.com>
From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:16:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD3-0rPvB0BwBhEF0ybd3402Spk2DQeo_P7JSCa1CC2NJdX=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07a1eea8d9e6054838a53c
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.161.173; envelope-from=wenboz@google.com; helo=mail-yw0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1ccOBg-0003WP-TC 84fa1cfb176092603f4624ce53b05a5d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAD3-0rPvB0BwBhEF0ybd3402Spk2DQeo_P7JSCa1CC2NJdX=wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33469
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> "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> wrote:

> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Tom Bergan <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
>
>
>