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

RE: NEW ISSUE(S): Retrying Requests

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:36:45 -0800
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002601c87ec5$f489fc80$6401a8c0@T60>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> This is defined in the context of persistent connections 
> that have closed, which is fine, except that retry
> behaviour for idempotent requests isn't defined anywhere
> else; the reader has to deduct that it's possible by
> reading between the lines here. Since automatic  
> retries are implemented in a number of places (client and  
> intermediary), I think it should be at least mentioned in
> a way that isn't just specific to connections closing,
> and as a MAY, not just a MUST NOT on non-idempotent
> requests. I.e., I think request retries (as  
> opposed to connection retries) deserves its own section.

I agree that is a good idea. It also affects the Pipelining section, and
anywhere else that mentions idempotency. With this new section, maybe
the term idempotency can be totally removed from the specification? I
agree with Roy [1] that the use of the term in RFC 2616 has caused more
trouble than benefit.

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg10759.html

- Brian
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 13:37:04 UTC

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