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

Re: 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:55:54 -0800 (PST)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-ng%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mogul@pa.dec.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951227174352.9224C-100000@chivalry>
Probably should take this to the persist list, or the http-ng mailing list
(now at http-ng@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com)

The NG approach to HTTP/1.X encapsuation and persistent connections makes 
this tradeoff easier, since cancellation doesn't require the connection 
to be torn down.

The RTT costs with this approach using optimistic transmission are 0 RTT 
for the successful case, and approximately 1 in the event of failure (the 
costs can be greater than one if data is being  enqueued at the TCP layer 
faster than the TCP transmission rate; the excess data is then drained. 

Simon

(defun modexpt (x y n)  "computes (x^y) mod n"
  (cond ((= y 0) 1) 	((= y 1) (mod x n))
	((evenp y) (mod (expt (modexpt x (/ y 2) n) 2) n))
	(t (mod (* x (modexpt x (1- y) n)) n))))
Received on Wednesday, 27 December 1995 17:57:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:38 EDT