Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Now <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/477> (editorial).

Thanks,


On 30/04/2013, at 5:33 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Section 6.6 of p1 states:
> 
>   A server that sends a close connection option MUST initiate a
>   lingering close of the connection after it sends the response
>   containing close.  The server MUST NOT process any further requests
>   received on that connection.
> 
>   A client that receives a close connection option MUST cease sending
>   requests on that connection and close the connection after reading
>   the response message containing the close; if additional pipelined
>   requests had been sent on the connection, the client SHOULD assume
>   that they will not be processed by the server.
> 
> The last sentence can be interpreted one of two ways:
> 1) The client SHOULD assume the additional pipelined requests will NOT be processed by the server and therefore can happily re-try them knowing the server has not processed the previous ones.
> 
> 2) The client SHOULD NOT assume the additional pipelined requests will be processed (which implies the client simply can not know whether the server has processed them or not).
> 
> As the client has no way of knowing whether the server may have processed them or not (e.g. the client may be talking to a proxy that has already relayed the pipelined requests to the origin and done so before the proxy was aware that it wanted to close the connection on this response) I would suggest rewording the last sentence quoted above:
> 
> OLD:
>   the client SHOULD assume that they will not be processed by the server.
> NEW:
>   the client SHOULD NOT assume that they will be processed by the server.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Ben
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/