- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 10:46:27 -0700
- To: "'fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU'" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: "'jg@w3.org'" <jg@w3.org>, "'http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'masinter@parc.xerox.com'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
(I wish I'd seen this before sending my last message on this topic...) >---------- >From: koen@win.tue.nl[SMTP:koen@win.tue.nl] >Subject: Re: Two-phase sends > [ommissions...] > >If this is the case, my problems with two-phase would mostly >disappear. If you are right, I misinterpreted (the context of?) the >following language in the spec: > > If the client knows that the server is an HTTP/1.1 (or later) >server, > because of the server protocol version returned with a previous >request > on the same persistent connection [alternatively: within the past ><N> > hours], it MUST wait for a response. If the client believes that >the > ^^^^ > server is a 1.0 or earlier server, it SHOULD continue >transmitting > its request after waiting at least [5] seconds for a status >response. This occurs in the paragraph right after the one saying that clients have to use two-phase if they get a closed connection with no status. It is an elaboration on the requirements of two phase mode on clients. It is followed by more elaboration for clients and servers. > >and I strongly suggest that this part is rewritten to make it more >clear when this MUST comes into play. If a section header "8.4.1.1 Two phase mode" were inserted before these >paragraphs, would that set the context more solidly? Paul
Received on Thursday, 25 April 1996 10:55:22 UTC