Re: Two-phase sends

Roy T. Fielding:
>
>> 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.

If this is the case, my problems with two-phase would mostly
disappear.  If you are right, I misinterpreted (the context of?) the
following language in the spec:

    If the client knows that the server is an HTTP/1.1 (or later) server,
    because of the server protocol version returned with a previous request
    on the same persistent connection [alternatively:  within the past <N>
    hours], it MUST wait for a response.  If the client believes that the
               ^^^^
    server is a 1.0 or earlier server, it    SHOULD continue transmitting
    its request after waiting at least [5] seconds for a status response.

and I strongly suggest that this part is rewritten to make it more
clear when this MUST comes into play.

> ...Roy T. Fielding

Koen.