W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: two-phase send concerns

From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:52:10 -0800 (PST)
To: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.951206104524.8623A-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>


On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> 
> Yep, that's right.  The 5 seconds is arbitrary and only serves as
> a forcing function.

I too want to understand the question Alex raised during the WG meeting
re. why slow start and transmit windows don't prevent this from being
a non-concern?  Isn't the client naturally restricted from sending
a huge number of bytes before the server starts receiving some of the
bytes?  If there needs to be a timeout to protect poor implementations,
might it not be better to restrict the server from closing the connection
for some interval after sending the abort. The server can leave the
data unreceived or otherwise close the receive window but leave the
connection open.

Dave Morris
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 1995 10:57:30 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:36 EDT