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

Re: NEW ISSUE: Monitoring Connections text

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:06:11 -0800 (PST)
cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0711231503200.25156-100000@egate.xpasc.com>



On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> On ons, 2007-11-21 at 22:33 -0800, David Morris wrote:
>
> > > Should be a chunk extension, not new length.. i.e. something like
> > >
> > > 0; aborted
>
> > Only if current recipients will not ignore the 'aborted' and consider the
> > entity complete.
>
> Why?
>
> What's important is that current recipients correctly understands that
> as "end-of-message".
>
> We are talking mainly about aborting the request entity after the server
> have already said "I am not interested", not the response entity.

Because I believe it critical to safe operation that an abort be
recognized by the recipient of the 'message'. Passing an abort signal in
a way that it it ignored under extensiblity rules, etc. makes for the
possiblity of misunderstanding.
Received on Friday, 23 November 2007 23:06:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT