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: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:22:48 -0800 (PST)
To: rg@server.net
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.90.951228191657.28047E-100000@jobe.shell.portal.com>


On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Roger Gonzalez wrote:

> 
> >>>>> Jeffrey Mogul writes:
> 
> Jeff> But I still assert that the optimistic approach is "better" 
> Jeff> (perhaps not "best") if one believes that, most of the time,
> Jeff> RTTs do matter and servers will not reject PUT-like methods.
> 
> While I agree with you overall, I don't buy this.  The first PUT
> in any session will almost -always- be rejected.  Here's my reasoning:

Well, my sample is a couple versions of Netscape, but I believe your
reasoning is based on an untrue premise.  I am a regular user of
www.quote.com and have been prompted for basic authentiation data
and supplied it since my lasst restart of Netscape.  The next time
I communicate with www.quote.com Netscape provides the authentication
data w/o prompting by the server.

It has been and is my belief that most PUTs will occur in response to
a prompt page from the same server/authentication domain. If the
challenge/response occurs before the setup/prompt page is delivered,
it is likely that the UA will provide the same response with the
PUT and avoid the challenge.

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 19:29:01 EST

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