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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 February 2017 03:38 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 0DC5C12989D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:38:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 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=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4wSNix4ZJPnR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:38:51 -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 62596129891 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:38:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cawZc-0003tX-NL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:36:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:36:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cawZc-0003tX-NL@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 1cawZY-0003sY-DE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:36:04 +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 1cawZR-0008Gg-Uu for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:35:58 +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 6A91022E256; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 22:35:35 -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: <d8e70ea7-5d62-e22a-c0c5-ac223aa2c3a3@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 14:35:32 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BABA7AEC-EE2E-4648-BA08-C30454752CC9@mnot.net>
References: <148593754312.24497.16311379877517350605.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3F68DC4A-3AC8-4309-8119-15A82C5E1EFC@mnot.net> <d8e70ea7-5d62-e22a-c0c5-ac223aa2c3a3@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
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=-7.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.262, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cawZR-0008Gg-Uu 2a368fffefcfbde98948eae28c6c7ffd
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/BABA7AEC-EE2E-4648-BA08-C30454752CC9@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33454
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 7 Feb 2017, at 8:04 am, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/01/2017 01:26 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> FYI; fairly minor update. Would love to hear what people think about the
>> various suggested paths forward.
> 
> FWIW, Squid mind-boggling algorithm for retries is partially summarized
> at
> http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/InnerWorkings?highlight=%28reforward%29#When_does_Squid_re-forward_a_client_request.3F
> 
> Your draft already mentions a single Squid decision point, but the
> actual logic is a lot more complex than the draft currently implies.
> Some of that complexity is Squid's fault, as the source code comment you
> quoted illustrates, but a lot of it is genuine.

Ah, I should have remembered that one; thanks. I've added a link.


> Recommending a unified (but necessarily parameterized) approach to
> retries would be useful for future implementors, but I suspect that
> doing so properly would take too much time while oversimplifying the
> situation would not help much. Just cataloging various retry factors to
> consider may be very helpful on its own, even if you then suggest
> nothing more than "keep these factors in mind when implementing retries".

That's a reasonable outcome. Some folks might want more, e.g., a recommended algorithm that itself isn't mandatory for all implementations (yet). Whether we go that far (and when) is still an open question, I think.

Cheers,


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