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: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:11:20 -0700
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <DCDE93F4-D14D-49BF-ACAD-8A78CCA07257@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Lacking any feedback or additional proposals, I'm closing this issue  
with no spec changes. If someone can build consensus on text to add,  
we can reopen for that.

On 07/04/2008, at 5:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> On 07/04/2008, at 6:19 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> Comments aiding implementers in how to deal with the current mess of
>> clearly broken and non-compliant implementations is best placed in a
>> separate informal document outside the standard documenting known  
>> bugs
>> and how to deal with them. The focus in the standard text itself  
>> should
>> be longterm interoperability. These implementations is very likely to
>> decline over time, and having such comments in the standard text  
>> itself
>> only adds confusion.
> There's that document again. Any volunteers to edit it?
>> So far there is no evidence that the amount of broken  
>> implementations is
>> so high that implementing pipelining isn't possible or useful. In  
>> fact I
>> would say the opposite has already been proved in the wild with  
>> several
>> non-browser applications making very successful use of pipelining.
> I don't agree. AIUI those non-browser applications have been  
> successful because pipelining has been used under controlled  
> conditions; i.e., with a known workload, and a limited pool of  
> implementations.
> Perhaps my proposal wasn't focused on the right aspect of interop;  
> broken implementations are part of the problem, but the other is the  
> nature of pipelining itself (e.g., forcing complexity and  
> uncertainty on the client WRT what the optimal use of pipelining  
> is). Would you be comfortable adding text like that?
>> It's
>> true that enabling pipelinng is hard for the major browser vendors as
>> their users expect them to deal with pretty much every crappy  
>> server out
>> there no matter how broken it is, but thats a position they have  
>> placed
>> themselves in.  I would be very glad the day the major browsers  
>> started
>> to actually alert the user when a broken server is detected instead  
>> of
>> just silently work around it, placing some pressure on getting  
>> servers
>> fixed.
> Lots of people argued for something to be said about pipelining in  
> previous threads; this proposal is the end result, although it's  
> pretty watered down. I'd like to hear from those who put in their . 
> 02 earlier; does this add any value at all, or should we just close  
> this issue with no action?
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 02:11:58 UTC

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