Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Unclear wording about idle timeouts and HTTP/3 implementations #4357

Closed
LPardue opened this issue Nov 15, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Unclear wording about idle timeouts and HTTP/3 implementations #4357

LPardue opened this issue Nov 15, 2020 · 3 comments
Assignees
@MikeBishop
Labels
-http editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
Milestone
http-genart

Comments

@LPardue
Copy link
Member

LPardue commented Nov 15, 2020

In the HTTP genart review, @theri writes:

Section 5.1

"HTTP/3 implementations will need to open a new HTTP/3
connection for new requests if the existing connection has been idle
for longer than the server's advertised idle timeout"
Only the server's timeout? Does "implementations" here mean only clients?
@LPardue LPardue added the -http label Nov 15, 2020
@LPardue LPardue added this to the http-genart milestone Nov 15, 2020
@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

That language has changed in transport, so we should update to match here. The timeout is negotiated between server and client.

@larseggert larseggert added the ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call. label Nov 16, 2020
@larseggert larseggert added this to Triage in Late Stage Processing via automation Nov 16, 2020
@LPardue LPardue added the editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. label Nov 24, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Triage to Editorial Issues in Late Stage Processing Nov 24, 2020
@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

This also was addressed in #4383, specifically 77ea56e.

@MikeBishop MikeBishop added the proposal-ready An issue which has a proposal that is believed to be ready for a consensus call. label Dec 2, 2020
@project-bot project-bot bot moved this from Editorial Issues to Consensus Emerging in Late Stage Processing Dec 2, 2020
@LPardue
Copy link
Member Author

LPardue commented Dec 8, 2020

This editorial issue was fixed in a PR but our automation didn't pick up on it. Manually closing.

@LPardue LPardue closed this as completed Dec 8, 2020
Late Stage Processing automation moved this from Consensus Emerging to Issue Handled Dec 8, 2020
@LPardue LPardue removed the proposal-ready An issue which has a proposal that is believed to be ready for a consensus call. label Dec 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@MikeBishop MikeBishop

Labels
-http editorial An issue that does not affect the design of the protocol; does not require consensus. ietf-lc An issue that was raised during IETF Last Call.
Projects
Late Stage Processing
  
Issue Handled
Milestone
http-genart
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@larseggert @MikeBishop @LPardue