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

Re: Updated PATCH draft

From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:03:47 -0800
Message-ID: <e3f21b1a0712081503h3e6af093u4aa75d04b2b78a86@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>
I have a comment on this paragraph of this draft.

"Clients are advised to take caution when sending multiple PATCH requests,
or sequences of requests that include PATCH, over a pipelined connection as
there are no guarantees that pipelined requests will be processed by the
server in the same order in which the client sends them."

Since 2616 says that clients SHOULD NOT pipeline non-idempotent methods, and
since PATCH is a  non-idempotent method, any reason why a similar
conformance level is not presented here? Secondly, are there cases when
pipelined requests will be processed out of order? 2616 explicitly prohibits
sending responses out of order (


On Oct 27, 2007 10:01 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com > wrote:

> An updated PATCH draft is available.
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-10.txt
> Main changes include:
>  * Removing the Prefer header (now published as a separate I-D)
>  * Minor restructuring of the doc
>  * Some editorial changes
> - James
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 23:03:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:44 UTC