Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 29 April 2013 19:39 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 8CB8021F9AF6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:39:11 -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 4sYLMjkh2LXs for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50A721F9AB5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWtty-0001bC-RC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:38:18 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:38:18 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWtty-0001bC-RC@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UWttp-0001Zv-93 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:38:09 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UWtto-0000RX-5B for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:38:09 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r3TJbiTn018713; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:37:44 +0200
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:37:44 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130429193744.GD16819@1wt.eu>
References: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ECD24B2A-B90F-4A68-B405-8DE029D6A232@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.889, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.442, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UWtto-0000RX-5B 2128aeb8ffaeaaa38d7b267cd9251807
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130429193744.GD16819@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17675
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 08:33:41PM +0100, Ben Niven-Jenkins 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.

+1 that's perfectly true.

Willy