Ietf Internet-Draft: Passive Hot Reload for Zero-Downtime Server Reconfiguration
Postedabout 1 month ago
Original: IETF Internet-Draft: Passive Hot Reload for zero-downtime server reconfiguration
datatracker.ietf.orgTech Discussionstory
informativeneutral
Debate
20/100
NetworkingServer ManagementIetf
Key topics
Networking
Server Management
Ietf
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
1
Start
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM EST
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in Start
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 27, 2025 at 10:33 AM EST
about 1 month ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46070160Type: storyLast synced: 11/27/2025, 3:34:09 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
This isn’t just conceptual: the mechanism is implemented in the FoxyFy Web Server and currently runs in production across 35+ global Points-of-Presence.
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ahrweiler-hotreload/
Implementation: https://foxyfy.net/
The aim is to move away from ad-hoc reload behaviour (SIGHUP chaos, partial reloads, race conditions) toward predictable, interoperable reload semantics.
I’d genuinely value technical feedback: - Is this solving a real operational pain point? - How does this compare to existing reload models you rely on (nginx, systemd, HAProxy, etc)? - Any edge cases, security concerns, or failure modes you’d expect to see addressed?
Happy to go deep on implementation details if useful.