- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 07:30:41 -0700
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: jg@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com
> b.1) Two-phase saves bandwidth sometimes, at the cost of speed
> (round-trips) for each POST request, no matter how small. I have seen
> no statistics that this tradeoff improves current conditions, while I
> suspect that it does not in many cases. Two-phase thus adds complexity
> without having established the need for this. If we have it, it
> should at least be optional for small POST requests.
This is simply untrue. The two-phase mechanism does not come into play
until AFTER the first request encountered A FAILED CONNECTION WITH RESET.
> b.2) The new requirement that two-phase is also used for normal POSTS
> of small forms means degradation of performance for many existing
> forms applications when upgraded to 1.1. It may also decrease my
> chance of making a successful POST transaction (with a busy search
> engine) if the backbone is dropping a significant number of packets.
Also untrue.
> b.3) Finally, the MUST/SHOULD text about two-phase does not take
> proxies, especially 1.0 proxies, into account.
Again, not true. The section uses the term "client" exactly as defined
by the specification.
> If I am to agree with two-phase staying in, I would require all points
> above to be convincingly addressed.
None of your points apply to the existing text.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 25 April 1996 07:51:55 UTC