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: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:40:20 -0800
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9512281440.aa25197@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> A good point.  But even if the HTTP protocol allows the use of an
> optimistic two-phase scheme (as I am suggesting), this does not mean
> that it would be required (since the optimistic scheme includes the
> pessimistic scheme as a backstop).  In other words, a user that was
> being charged by the packet could choose to employ the pessimistic
> scheme, on its own initiative.

If this would still require the 100 Continue response be sent upon receipt
of the initial headers (which is what the application desiring a pessimistic
scheme would be looking for anyway), it sounds good to me.  It is okay if
the pessimistic scheme only works "well" for HTTP/1.1 servers.


 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 14:56:26 EST

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