- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:19:10 -0800
- 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 UTC