- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:59:34 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
I see that the Monday internet draft still includes two-phase POSTS and PUTS. I strongly object to this a) on procedural grounds b) on technical grounds. Ad a: a.1) The issues list says: Two Phase methods: JM Section 8.4 POST Two-phase POST removed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mogul has writeup of result of discussion? Status: need writeup, WG review and I clearly remember that we indeed conclude that two-phase methods should not be in 1.1 at the end of the two-phase wars some months ago. a.2) Also, the 02 draft says: POST requests must obey the entity transmission requirements set out in section 8.4.1 [which talks about two-phase]. While the 01/00 drafts said: HTTP/1.1 allows for a two-phase process to occur in accepting and processing a POST request. If the media type of the posted entity is not "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" [5], an HTTP/1.1 client ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ must pause between sending [....] This considerable change was not discussed. Ad b: 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. 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. b.3) Finally, the MUST/SHOULD text about two-phase does not take proxies, especially 1.0 proxies, into account. If I am to agree with two-phase staying in, I would require all points above to be convincingly addressed. Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 1996 05:06:26 UTC