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

Re: Two-phase sends

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:30:41 -0700
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: jg@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Message-Id: <9604250730.aa20609@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/331
> b.1) Two-phase saves bandwidth sometimes, at the cost of speed
> (round-trips) for each POST request, no matter how small.  I have seen
> no statistics that this tradeoff improves current conditions, while I
> suspect that it does not in many cases. Two-phase thus adds complexity
> without having established the need for this.  If we have it, it
> should at least be optional for small POST requests.

This is simply untrue.  The two-phase mechanism does not come into play
until AFTER the first request encountered A FAILED CONNECTION WITH RESET.

> b.2) The new requirement that two-phase is also used for normal POSTS
> of small forms means degradation of performance for many existing
> forms applications when upgraded to 1.1.  It may also decrease my
> chance of making a successful POST transaction (with a busy search
> engine) if the backbone is dropping a significant number of packets.

Also untrue.

> b.3) Finally, the MUST/SHOULD text about two-phase does not take
> proxies, especially 1.0 proxies, into account.

Again, not true.  The section uses the term "client" exactly as defined
by the specification.

> If I am to agree with two-phase staying in, I would require all points
> above to be convincingly addressed.

None of your points apply to the existing text.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
Received on Thursday, 25 April 1996 07:51:55 UTC

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