W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: two-phase send concerns

From: Roger Gonzalez <rg@server.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:15:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199512072215.RAA11660@caffeine.server.net>
To: mogul@pa.dec.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>>>> Jeffrey Mogul writes:

Jeff> 	If the server doesn't want to receive the large body, it
Jeff> immediately replies with its 4xx or 5xx response, and
Jeff> immediately closes (not resets) the connection.

Jeff> 	If the client manages to read the 4xx or 5xx response, it must
Jeff> honor it and should reflect it to the user.

I really don't like the "If".  401 (not to mention 3xx) -require- the
client to read the response, because they aren't fatal, and they
contain critical information to making the transaction succeed!
If there is any doubt that the client might not read the response,
then we are doing something wrong.

The protocol should be deterministic in any case where the physical
connection hasn't been screwed up.  I'm all for fault tolerance and
fallback mechanisms, but they should not be the "standard" way of
moving data around.

Anyway, everyone keeps talking about the 4xx and 5xx -fatal- cases.
These are the easy ones.  In any scenario, please think in terms of a
harder case, such as the client wants to PUT a giant chunk of data to
a location that requires authentication, or tries to POST to a
resource that has moved, etc.


Roger Gonzalez                    NetCentric Corporation
rg@server.net                     56 Rogers Street
home   (617) 646-0028             Cambridge, MA 02142
mobile (617) 755-0635             work (617) 868-8600

60 09 3A EE FE 6A 1E CC   -pgp-   B7 F7 6B 0F 00 1D 01 C7 
Received on Thursday, 7 December 1995 14:21:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC