Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Sat, 12 November 2016 15:59 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 96AA51293E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, 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 mUYI0rMUrFzR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:59:43 -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 5B9D4126FDC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c5af6-0000ZR-Ou for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c5af6-0000ZR-Ou@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1c5af1-0000Vl-Ft for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:07 +0000
Received: from mail.measurement-factory.com ([104.237.131.42]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1c5aev-0004pS-Mz for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:56:02 +0000
Received: from [65.102.233.169] (unknown [65.102.233.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.measurement-factory.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEFE5E057; Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:55:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <147792294052.32397.15544665152412530374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzwm_T-HW0yT1MAWEUrfw5OAVkmAZe890575qg8HuU9Z_Q@mail.gmail.com> <86447165-100C-407D-8512-A32F93B11BBA@lukasa.co.uk> <c7b33b3d-8cab-5621-2c74-14e21a5a3885@gmx.de> <4178648b-081f-6a85-ce06-2037c946993c@gmx.de> <5aea6698-ec53-f670-63a7-69e13f3d9a60@gmx.de> <a4cbb6f0-caa8-8adc-47dd-115d74deedd3@measurement-factory.com> <f4bb96dc-502f-0d98-4672-2ad394d61036@gmx.de>
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <699a060a-1ac4-d9da-f4c8-49883ed21453@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 08:55:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f4bb96dc-502f-0d98-4672-2ad394d61036@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.237.131.42; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=mail.measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c5aev-0004pS-Mz 965843cc1d96ec356a39ec4cb0c59f84
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/699a060a-1ac4-d9da-f4c8-49883ed21453@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32876
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 11/12/2016 12:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-11-12 01:00, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 11/11/2016 12:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Q: maybe we should create a Wiki page, summarizing implementation status
>>> and bug reports?
>>
>> FWIW, based on the results I had access to, most of the HTTP proxies
>> using our HTTP compliance test suite mishandled 1xx messages one way or
>> the other. Even today, after all the tests and bug fixes, there is an
>> outstanding Squid bug where an unfortunate timing of 1xx and other
>> events lead to a crash. 1xx is evidently tricky to get right.
>>
>> This data point is not meant to support or combat the "let the bad
>> implementations surface/suffer" argument. I am just reporting that many,
>> possibly most proxies mishandle 1xx messages.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> When you talk about "timing", does that apply to any 1xx, or just the
> 100-continue dance?

The bugs depend on the proxy, naturally. Some do not forward any 1xx,
some forward only 100 (Continue), some mistake 1xx for the final
response, some cannot handle an early final response received in the
same TCP packet as 1xx, etc. etc.

The specific Squid bug I used as a recent example applies to all 1xx
control messages and their timing relative to other rare events such as
client or server disconnect or timeout. Thus, it is not specific to
100-continue. Statistically speaking, releasing more 1xx events into the
wild will expose more 1xx implementation bugs.

Alex.