Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 21:50 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 55AC421F9B63 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 AqnqBXHlnFC1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C98221F9BFF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWvxc-0006Tv-E6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:50:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:50:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWvxc-0006Tv-E6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1UWvxT-00064t-Dl for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:50:03 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1UWvxS-0006RW-M0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:50:03 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id oi10so5881673obb.10 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=o9Yy6PH+J2QQ0IQ/gPdyLuBsIfl4/1KWcW84mdJBcUk=; b=ZpGSOKMl/4tedEctTJJMkE7a5FEEqU7TrhEGkJI8yNqnXR6xD4PDKg2jIVqhk77lYi W3y0JC/cVGZmKvL9Wk+pJf0lUf9exKLinV0U7L2jUb74aq+x7gVDt35vvgOakx7uY+oa fGa0baYfZov85WGo2YpF0iBj9IOlULTs1MukmMop15HGM2k6btKdKZLW26LTS/gNsz+r L/yrne3KfUjpe/7+jRD65y+7NMPQfZAyE5weAOWNNHn/63buw+fut8ZNDzH0UNvVGIXf ojpwWY+4ShX43j7tUfcJvSTCxOazU2NFlFmWFpVFPuDWTxhp+JGW+nCBzmqclddJMpc3 7Gfg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.93.74 with SMTP id cs10mr19977560oeb.21.1367272176696; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.127.141 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
References: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:49:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqFAyZ4VMfbHnF=SnopZ6PmVqj0R0a8h3whU=gSe7Ky4jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d1d667429104db86dcbf
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.613, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UWvxS-0006RW-M0 f5a9d20d8d87273f3ead2b4cef097c16
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqFAyZ4VMfbHnF=SnopZ6PmVqj0R0a8h3whU=gSe7Ky4jg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17686
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 Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins
<ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>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.
>
>
Agreed; an origin server may also process pipelined requests concurrently,
so request#2 may have been processed when response#1 causes
Connection:close.


>
> Thanks
> Ben
>
>
>