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

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Wed, 01 February 2017 20:45 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 9EBBE1299F2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.718 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_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 xGwzihOU-hCY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:45:08 -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 28C201299EF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:45:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cZ1j6-0006JB-8J for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:42:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:42:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cZ1j6-0006JB-8J@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1cZ1j0-0006I2-10 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:41:54 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1cZ1it-0001YI-Gh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:41:48 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id v77so55700696wmv.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:41:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xenwwOiR7/wBeb+F68FU0EyQ+/NG1x+qSpjkTCfjxBs=; b=D/btts9MYyVAyNVNX5Qr1dTD8GQU9K7YXuGawIMK1QZb7tYkXdOZFLlSCyeiduZVDG 7NMlc/zsv6Hh2DPyaIRxXUWiZHzG4bkZZHhEXiy/xclkIC80ts8fHOtAh/yzsxGdChn3 6AdSpQIxdFZx8fWBXx4tsRK5HqjX2fJWRHdLw=
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=xenwwOiR7/wBeb+F68FU0EyQ+/NG1x+qSpjkTCfjxBs=; b=ldyd96uKIdZtWrPOTc2d6l2rrQAeBQxERiJpxM8S78i3HF1Hp922SzI0bvpMEZgBMv IGdbrIxljXJ8pFV8e0/rbmGL+xh58RHU1e7u1l2zAlIyzMgkqaLO96SUa9beq7eOYPua GAVqyIh6WeQMtFtqCDh9kba3a1TvW52FWznd3Ihma5GY724dSPOs/AMY3GMIOxozPHIQ LdMZ0I5jc4gErZtIqZsQ95FoSWNFzqiirsIQkih6ZT1/YKg4y3XeoUlXB/k+6juVwcMb hcanGzmfPFXsj3+mlcGXMGgsHpfpCXSyeesMuew/lnQ9Jp6nFQP/O2cNUOT7abs/GY8W P6oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJmRVIEa1SO+/Wstg8ZEMLCVKTtHyIrBRHBQDfcpiAf/v+gFI4ulCfif35xhiTs9JDV
X-Received: by 10.28.232.196 with SMTP id f65mr4396218wmi.19.1485981680547; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com. [74.125.82.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l140sm31533043wmg.12.2017.02.01.12.41.19 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c85so57527077wmi.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:41:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.223.136.85 with SMTP id e21mr4283450wre.28.1485981679429; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:41:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.135.201 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:41:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3F68DC4A-3AC8-4309-8119-15A82C5E1EFC@mnot.net>
References: <148593754312.24497.16311379877517350605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3F68DC4A-3AC8-4309-8119-15A82C5E1EFC@mnot.net>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:41:18 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149253825674d05477e124d
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.49; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-wm0-f49.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cZ1it-0001YI-Gh 6310612df725acc364159875a2fc9453
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/CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33413
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>

> 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.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> FYI; fairly minor update. Would love to hear what people think about the
> various suggested paths forward.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
> *Subject: **New Version Notification for
> draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt*
> *Date: *1 February 2017 at 7:25:43 pm AEDT
> *To: *"Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-nottingham-httpbis-retry
> Revision: 01
> Title: Retrying HTTP Requests
> Document date: 2017-02-01
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 18
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-
> nottingham-httpbis-retry-01.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-
> httpbis-retry/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-httpbis-
> retry-01
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-
> nottingham-httpbis-retry-01
>
> Abstract:
>   HTTP allows requests to be automatically retried under certain
>   circumstances.  This draft explores how this is implemented,
>   requirements for similar functionality from other parts of the stack,
>   and potential future improvements.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>