Re: 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )

>>Jeffrey Mogul writes:
>> But I still assert that the optimistic approach is "better" 
>> (perhaps not "best") if one believes that, most of the time,
>> RTTs do matter and servers will not reject PUT-like methods.

>>While I agree with you overall, I don't buy this.  The first PUT
>>in any session will almost -always- be rejected.

I disagree.  Imagine a WWW-based conferencing system that is like
a super version of Usenet or Notes.  The URL could be a Message-ID
generated by the client and "meta-data" in the headers and/or body
would let the server link it into the right place(s) in the
document tree(/web).

I think such systems are possible -- heck, I want one now :) -- and
that they will have automated gateways doing lots of puts as they
feed tickerdata or Usenet into the web.  The extra RTT will be a bad
thing.  We're seeing this right now with NNTP.
	/r$