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

Re: Updated PATCH draft

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:19:10 -0800
Message-ID: <475BA4FE.1090508@gmail.com>
To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>

I've already removed this paragraph from the next version of the draft
because it is adequately covered by 2616.

- James

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? Secondly, are there cases when
> pipelined requests will be processed out of order? 2616 explicitly
> prohibits sending responses out of order ( 8.1.1.2 <http://8.1.1.2>).
> 
> Regards,
> Subbu
> 
> On Oct 27, 2007 10:01 AM, James M Snell < jasnell@gmail.com
> <mailto: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 08:19:32 GMT

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