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

Re: Updated PATCH draft

From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:21 +0100
To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>
Message-ID: <20071209024221.GZ1872@polar.elf12.net>

On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 03:03:47PM -0800, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> 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?

Because it is already in 2616 and the draft points to it, no?

> Secondly, are there cases when pipelined requests will be processed 
> out of order?

At least, could be processed in parallel or decomposed into 
non-pipelined requests in the proxy chain and overtake each other this 
way.

> 2616 explicitly prohibits sending responses out of order (8.1.1.2).

Of course, but that is _sending_ only, not processing nor forwarding.


My 2 cents,
		Robert


> 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 Sunday, 9 December 2007 02:42:08 GMT

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