W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:17:22 +0100
To: Travis Snoozy <ai2097@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: "Yngve N. Pettersen (Developer Opera Software ASA)" <yngve@opera.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070717151722.GA25925@mail.shareable.org>

Travis Snoozy wrote:
> > I thought I should mention this particular issue I am seeing.
> > 
> > There are a number of servers that does not handle pipelining at all
> > well.
> <snip>
> 
> ... and?
> 
> More important than pointing out a bunch of bad implementations is
> to point out what's wrong with the RFC that led to the bad
> implementations. However, pipelining is pretty cut-and-dried -- I don't
> know that the RFC can make it much clearer than it already is. If you
> see ambiguities in the RFC that lead to these differing server
> behaviors, though, please do identify them.

I think it's important to document practical known problems which
exist on a substantial scale, and suggested workarounds.  There are
RFCs which do this.  RFC 2616 does a little bit, e.g. suggesting that
implementations accept LF or CR LF as a line ending while being clear
that LF alone is not conforming.

If that sort of thing isn't for RFC2616bis, I suggest that there ought
to be _some_ centralised place for it?  

Dealing with broken implementations is an important part of most HTTP
implementations, even though such workarounds ought not to be
standardised, but perhaps suggested for a limited time.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 16:07:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT