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

Re: Suggestion for NEW Issue: Pipelining problems

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:14:33 -0700
Message-Id: <DE44F2B6-A422-470E-A5CB-4E2E49B71CA4@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: yngve@opera.com

On Jul 17, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen wrote:
> What we have here is, indeed, incorrect implementations.
>
> However, it is something that I think this group should be aware  
> of, and perhaps address in some fashion, if possible.
>
> There is quite some variation in the problems encountered, and  
> their severity, from the less serious cut-or-hang-the-connection  
> variations, to skip-requests to the variations I forgot to mention  
> in my initial mail: the ones folding two responses into each other,  
> and the ones that performs a response card shuffle. The most  
> serious of the latter include the transparent proxies of major  
> internet security suites (the ones I am aware of are Panda and  
> Symantec, although I have not yet investigated fully what they are  
> doing).
>
> The question is if something can be done with the existing system,  
> for example by adding some headers, or should a new system be created?

No.  The same broken implementations will just break the new system,
and then we have twice as many broken ways to do the same thing.

The solution is trivial.  When you encounter a broken server, display
an error message (not a stupid modal dialog that stops everything and
prevents further progress until a user presses the OK button, just a
side box that indicates the server is broken because ...).  Convince
the other major browser developers to do the same and all of those
problems will quickly disappear on their own.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 00:14:38 GMT

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