W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1998

ADAMS1, point 28 (connection management)

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 11:27:06 -0800
Message-Id: <9811131927.AA01401@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com

> 28. Section 8.2.3, pg. 45, has the phrase "(Confirmation by user-agent
> software with semantic understanding of the application MAY substitute
> for use confirmation.)" This appears to controvert the stronger language
> in Section 8.1.4, para. 4, which does not have this parenthetical note.

Yes, it is a relaxation if the user agent understands what is going on
(e.g. java or javascript applications).

Actually, section 8.2.3 looks almost entirely redundant with the 4th
paragraph of 8.1.4 (with the exception of the parenthetical remark),
though slightly contradictory (a MUST NOT vs. a SHOULD NOT).

So I think deleting section 8.2.3, and moving the sentence about sofware 
with semantic understanding to that paragraph of  8.1.4 results in:

  "This means that clients, servers, and proxies MUST be able to recover 
   from asynchronous close events. Client software SHOULD reopen the transport 
   connection and retransmit the aborted sequence of requests without user 
   interaction so long as the request sequence is idempotent (see section 
   9.1.2). Non-idempotent methods or sequences MUST NOT be automatically 
   retried, although user agents MAY offer a human operator the choice 
   of retrying the request(s). Confirmation by user-agent software with 
   semantic understanding of the application MAY substitute for user 
   confirmation. The automatic retry SHOULD NOT be repeated if the second 
   sequence of requests fails."

will solve this.

				- Jim
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 19:28:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:25 EDT