Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Sun, 19 May 2013 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 9833121F8E46 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7v-9jxK4FRh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB4421F8E84 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 19 May 2013 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ue9WB-0007nU-W0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 19 May 2013 19:43:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 19:43:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ue9WB-0007nU-W0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1Ue9Vw-0007ml-Ez for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 19 May 2013 19:43:28 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.207] helo=homiemail-a71.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1Ue9Vv-0005Sg-G4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 19 May 2013 19:43:28 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a71.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a71.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FF742806E; Sun, 19 May 2013 12:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=tVAYDMc9nrs7Uvr5B5GUPoOAavQ=; b=2DybM8anKR+9HhM0tZcmXvH91YWn zr/+3o+y6oF+Kd13EvnC3cS4SgkH62kgyF7t18L6SJDdffjFDw8IpgU/poA8t8pN KUij7AoPrvQVT50W4jfV62U/lTaYYr4cihoFM4EMzrfIKiUct2fQSgVPDmGsbizU LeX7LTJXdOtHD+U=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a71.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23504428056; Sun, 19 May 2013 12:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2013 12:43:14 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A71AA78F-A5B0-43C5-80D6-C11418E5F050@gbiv.com>
References: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.207; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a71.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.436, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ue9Vv-0005Sg-G4 3c7130a82441a6ec1d9eb3d6c31d56c3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/A71AA78F-A5B0-43C5-80D6-C11418E5F050@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18026
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>

Thanks, fixed in 

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2258

....Roy

On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins 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
> 
>