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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 02 February 2017 01:23 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 9D01512948F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:23:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GUeDVB6Jr5fr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:23:28 -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 F2E73129466 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:23:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cZ65D-0006td-7H for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:21:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:21:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cZ65D-0006td-7H@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 <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZ659-0006sR-1p for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:21:03 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cZ652-0003Gv-7T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:20:57 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4AC722E1F3; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 20:20:33 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+3+x5E26beOT0CQYvt1LmQXmZBG3i9+H0g9-hqGgE_OCofNeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 12:20:30 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.777, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cZ652-0003Gv-7T 06a94ae332716f2bfc4ee5f06dc185d3
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/AB3AFD47-2253-4F52-A694-803C0BBFA408@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33419
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 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.

Cheers,



> 
> 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/
> 
> 

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