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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 7 Feb 2017, at 8:04 am, Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]> 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/