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

RE: Two-phase sends

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:46:27 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960425174627Z-6890@tide21.microsoft.com>
To: "'fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: "'jg@w3.org'" <jg@w3.org>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'masinter@parc.xerox.com'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/337
(I wish I'd seen this before sending my last message on this topic...)

>From: 	koen@win.tue.nl[SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl]
>Subject: 	Re: Two-phase sends
>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)
>    because of the server protocol version returned with a previous
>    on the same persistent connection [alternatively:  within the past
>    hours], it MUST wait for a response.  If the client believes that
>               ^^^^
>    server is a 1.0 or earlier server, it    SHOULD continue
>    its request after waiting at least [5] seconds for a status

This occurs in the paragraph right after the one saying that clients
have to use two-phase if they get a closed connection with no status. It
is an elaboration on the requirements of two phase mode on clients. It
is followed by more elaboration for clients and servers.
>and I strongly suggest that this part is rewritten to make it more
>clear when this MUST comes into play.

If a section header " Two phase mode" were inserted before these
>paragraphs, would that set the context more solidly?

Received on Thursday, 25 April 1996 10:55:22 UTC

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