- From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:42:21 +0100
- To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 03:03:47PM -0800, Subbu Allamaraju wrote: > I have a comment on this paragraph of this draft. > > "Clients are advised to take caution when sending multiple PATCH requests, > or sequences of requests that include PATCH, over a pipelined connection as > there are no guarantees that pipelined requests will be processed by the > server in the same order in which the client sends them." > > Since 2616 says that clients SHOULD NOT pipeline non-idempotent methods, and > since PATCH is a non-idempotent method, any reason why a similar > conformance level is not presented here? Because it is already in 2616 and the draft points to it, no? > Secondly, are there cases when pipelined requests will be processed > out of order? At least, could be processed in parallel or decomposed into non-pipelined requests in the proxy chain and overtake each other this way. > 2616 explicitly prohibits sending responses out of order (8.1.1.2). Of course, but that is _sending_ only, not processing nor forwarding. My 2 cents, Robert > On Oct 27, 2007 10:01 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > An updated PATCH draft is available. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-10.txt > > > > Main changes include: > > > > * Removing the Prefer header (now published as a separate I-D) > > * Minor restructuring of the doc > > * Some editorial changes > > > > - James > > > >
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 02:42:08 UTC