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

Sitcky headers and pipelining (was: Sticky header draft -- as an attachment)

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 14:09:07 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960805210907Z-33859@tide19.microsoft.com>
To: 'Jeffrey Mogul' <mogul@pa.dec.com>, "'David W. Morris'" <dwm@shell.portal.com>
Cc: "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1199

>From: 	David W. Morris[SMTP:dwm@shell.portal.com]
>Subject: 	Re: Sticky header 
>On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:
>> I think this leads to an ambiguous situation when the client is
>> pipelining requests.  We identified this ambiguity at the meeting
>> we had in January of the persistent-connections subgroup.
>I think the ambiguity is also resolved if we change HTTP/1.1 to not
>allow pipelining UNTIL the first server response is received accepting
>the persistent connection and hence pipelining.

I thought that this was already the rule. Did it get lost when we made
persistence the default?

> That response will
>either include the server acceptance of the STICKY more or it won't.
>But there will be no ambiguity for the server to interpret.
>Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 5 August 1996 14:12:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC