Re: REFUSED_STREAM and CANCEL

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 27 March 2013 11:10 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 A878C21F910B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:10:33 -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 hVZZGITUGU6p for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D1621F910A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UKoDo-0004Ur-VA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:08:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:08:48 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UKoDo-0004Ur-VA@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UKoDa-0004TD-Vi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:08:34 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1UKoDZ-0006DH-O9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:08:34 +0000
Received: from [192.168.2.7] (103-9-43-128.flip.co.nz [103.9.43.128]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60983E6EBE for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:08:00 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <5152D30E.4010805@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:07:58 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CABkgnnXtjrZ6rqucN3EToVfV1iaz73RBEbd-D3P9iaSczcqw0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhU+gtsiAu_gp-aXS1vcme50FkPpCQAmJBqiikmAUAR8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWRLV0Kv-xixfN-4uR=3p5KZu+ynjiO4cV7oguGih_caQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNefrP7Sb_4THAPDLUGV0zFOZNRFtfXhAh=RUisvv=bd_A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWYzB9XixZkGD9F-=sGaWoX6C3Wu0zoVe9K2bJWcBpf0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWYzB9XixZkGD9F-=sGaWoX6C3Wu0zoVe9K2bJWcBpf0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.449, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UKoDZ-0006DH-O9 f55e2f64ca9756f778d7e053ddcbfe0a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: REFUSED_STREAM and CANCEL
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5152D30E.4010805@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17158
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 27/03/2013 9:41 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 26 March 2013 13:28, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bottom line: what do I do differently in response to a refused stream
>>> as opposed to a cancelled one?
>> You (rather, a browser) can automatically send the request again in the case
>> where a non-idempotent method such as POST was used.
>> With cancel, the browser would have to ask the client to confirm before
>> doing so.
> Why would the client not retry?  I would have modeled all of these as
> being equivalent to an HTTP/1.1 connection drop (albeit with a nicer
> recovery story).
>
> It might help to examine why a server would send a RST_STREAM w/
> CANCEL.  Here's what I can think of:
>   - server is overloaded, wants to send Retry-After for requests but
> not lose the connection
>   - resource disappeared or changed mid-response
>   - an upstream connection or request broke
>
> Anything else?  Because I can't see why retry is a bad idea in any of
> these cases, subject to the normal restrictions (idempotence, stream
> availability, etc...).

A CONNECT or Upgrade: request is requiring the TCP connection be 
converted from HTTP/1 to something else. New streams are not necessarily 
unwanted, but cannot use the connection now.

Amos