- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Dave Kristol wrote: > IF YOU DISAGREE, please address your objections to the http-wg mailing > list as quickly as possible. I review the proposal below. I disagree ... this is being proposed with far to little time to reflect on inplications such as Roy Fielding raises with respect to clean and unclean close. Having just recently spent days figuring out connection reset messages from Netscape which turned out to be our server ignoring the non-protocol extra CR-LF following POST content. I think this proposal has significant potential for increasing the probability that unclean close will become the norm. At best this will require significantly more user friendly error handling. It seems to me that the fundamental problem here will be a HTTP/1.1 client initiating a persistent connection with what turns out to be a HTTP/1.0 server w/o knowing the server is able to handle the additional data. If I recall correctly some of the issues raised earlier in the two phase PUT discussions, an HTTP/1.0 server could close after sending a brief response with the possiblity that the close would result in a reset which could leave the client quite confused. Isn't this a relatively minor change which could be included with HTTP/1.2? At that point there will be more general experience deploying the more conservative approach as well as more experience writing the code. So I would recommend against the change at this time but having said my piece, I can accept the proposal as currently stated. Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 18 April 1996 23:10:53 UTC