W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: PROPOSAL: i99 Pipelining Problems

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:20:20 +1000
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EF9F8C5C-6B19-43DA-9DD1-08B6BD27F0FD@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

Agreed; listing the bugs present in implementations isn't useful. What  
may be useful is noting that there do seem to be a high proportion of  
bugs in deployed implementations, and so clients using pipelining need  
to exercise a fair amount of caution.

So, here's a straw-man to add to p1

"Some early implementations of HTTP/1.1 servers and proxies have been  
noted to implement pipelining incorrectly, and some commonly-deployed  
(if not spec-compliant) devices may interfere with its correct  
operation. Clients choosing to send pipelined requests on the open  
Internet should, as a result, do so cautiously."

On 05/04/2008, at 5:17 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Hmm.
>> Any volunteers for providing spec-ready text?
> "Shit happens.  Deal with it."
> Seriously, there is no reason to specify all the possible ways
> in which messages might get lost on an unreliable connection.
> The only thing I would change is to resurrect my original design
> for the Keep-Alive header, which indicates how many more requests
> are allowed on a given persistent connection.  The others are just
> single point, non-reproducible bugs.
> ....Roy

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 02:21:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC