IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Thu, 02 February 2017 01:29 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 704D5129588 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:29:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.719 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] 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 Zf1mz62imLAW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:29:34 -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 716111294F0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cZ6BD-0001K8-7g for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:27:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:27:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cZ6BD-0001K8-7g@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 1cZ6B8-0001JL-FA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:27:14 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) 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 1cZ6B1-0003RV-5S for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:27:09 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 196so639663wmm.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:46 -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=h/mXMJE58dNXLSn5j0t5UBZl6jsSBZo70k4U90E96iQ=; b=HlxeACiK+XYwEZ8W/jXIj++aGg2vQjC28IvtzgOKHAqFhNFtKmeWMQDd/O1iFGxNCk WemenpgzeNAGQVDJjNnYEP4l1oX0X7+FDlcNmX05R2+DMh9pDGOUlREmt/A3KX72tlDY hh3wbS62hRGnBJzcOZTGgkXR6QKPpEYM97KLo=
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=h/mXMJE58dNXLSn5j0t5UBZl6jsSBZo70k4U90E96iQ=; b=O24TpSiEB2JB0nOSH67cKiSTptnUoP4+dDAFTmq1k+J5u6Y6WZhjnZkO/v7kP38Rjf /2X9biLUhOmMcAEBOisBuz8ncDYvuGG2N07OkOyQf6WEl5BtHojQVr1RMtnX3uwtj132 YWdPCKihT9xwc6zZ5kF1qoIxLySAnRN7TR1AM/vwY/27aLXAm97ON4Ax/VsWP2+LUnCf uN+z+5K1qUK89YB+7YIoizZ2J9+tZOukNRs8Xv7xyTTwlhRFO3fgbzozvMZ97qJbjst6 OHUbMR9Y7IgwLnBl3w/4VpZPNCgIUUAgB6TqAuuXclmreCTUI2Kn+ZEQUSrZI0h5jQO5 qSUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJXPT1WgkzsLcZLaY+/ZRUjqOnOnL2I4uflpjxN1gmma+3TVqYh8k4E0XVQoAf+ecs5
X-Received: by 10.223.164.10 with SMTP id d10mr4935041wra.90.1485998800161; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com. [74.125.82.54]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s26sm36642827wra.26.2017.02.01.17.26.39 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b65so66879473wmf.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.223.164.10 with SMTP id d10mr4934999wra.90.1485998799095; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.135.201 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:26:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AB3AFD47-2253-4F52-A694-803C0BBFA408@mnot.net>
References: <148593754312.24497.16311379877517350605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3F68DC4A-3AC8-4309-8119-15A82C5E1EFC@mnot.net> <CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com> <AB3AFD47-2253-4F52-A694-803C0BBFA408@mnot.net>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:26:38 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5HZdViUrmhdTpAxM=i0SbuD5B0d=eeAZnc89avTOzTGeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5HZdViUrmhdTpAxM=i0SbuD5B0d=eeAZnc89avTOzTGeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f164e8edb3a0547820eae"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.48; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-wm0-f48.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.950, BAYES_40=-0.001, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cZ6B1-0003RV-5S 00b447188de93152ac7f355d5aca31a3
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+x5HZdViUrmhdTpAxM=i0SbuD5B0d=eeAZnc89avTOzTGeg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33421
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>

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> > On 2 Feb 2017, at 7:41 am, 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)"?
>
> Thanks, fixed in source.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Good question. The immediate answer is that RFC2616 said it, and RFC2068
> said it before that (and apparently introduced the requirement).
>
> If we end up revising the text regarding retries, that's something we
> should consider updating too.


Maybe it there was a concern about accidental DoS? Infinite retries are
probably a bad idea without exponential backoff.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email