Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection is persistent

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Wed, 01 May 2013 07:52 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 A345021F8E46 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 00:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, 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 lGz6DHuSbsq5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 00:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064FB21F8C1A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 00:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXRpb-0002Nt-Cw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:52:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 07:52:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXRpb-0002Nt-Cw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1UXRpQ-0002MW-TK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:51:52 +0000
Received: from measurement-factory.com ([209.169.10.130]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1UXRpQ-0001rN-97 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 07:51:52 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by measurement-factory.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r417p9x2085104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 May 2013 01:51:09 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from rousskov@measurement-factory.com)
Message-ID: <5180C965.4090909@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 01:51:01 -0600
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <D69329FD-7456-46C5-BE24-6E7EE7E48C39@mnot.net> <5180137E.2040603@measurement-factory.com> <20130430194016.GM22605@1wt.eu> <5180523F.8020103@measurement-factory.com> <20130501065226.GE27137@1wt.eu> <5180C574.40609@measurement-factory.com> <20130501074019.GL27137@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20130501074019.GL27137@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.169.10.130; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.588, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.57, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UXRpQ-0001rN-97 f365d036dd71338fa81a156f676dc57d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: p1 MUST NOT pipeline until connection is persistent
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5180C965.4090909@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17757
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 05/01/2013 01:40 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 01:34:12AM -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>> I am still not sure why we are prohibiting retry pipelining on new
>> connections though. Why do we have to reuse an old connection if we want
>> to retry a failed pipeline?

> I don't remember, I believe it was just that if pipeline failed on a
> connection, you don't want to pipeline again on the new one, otherwise
> you can do that infinitely.

And if I use an old connection, the situation is guaranteed to be better
somehow?

The reasons a new connection may fail differ from the reasons an old
connection may fail, but both may fail, so I do not understand why we
are prohibiting one and requiring the other.

Alex.