W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: HTTP Working Group 'issues' list

From: Carlos Horowicz <carlos@patora.mrec.ar>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 17:54:23 -0300 (ARG)
Message-Id: <199602152054.UAA02499@patora.mrec.ar>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>     I don't believe you are allowed to send a second request on a
>     persistent connection before you get a complete reply.
> It is somewhat more complex than this.  Our subgroup's consensus is
>     Persistent connections are meant in part to support pipelining
>     of requests and responses.  However, a client MUST NOT pipeline
>     its requests until the server has indicated that it will create
>     a persistent connection.  We believe that otherwise, certain
>     servers or proxies could become confused.  We will allow a client
>     to remember that a given server has recently allowed persistent
>     connections (say, within the past 1 day).
> Given the last sentence, most of the time the client probably
> WILL be sending multiple requests without intervening replies.

This sounds more like the client batching requests and the server batching
responses, whenever they do kind of handshake at startup  and agree on this
(full-duplex) operating mode ...

> -Jeff

Received on Thursday, 15 February 1996 12:55:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:16 UTC