- From: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:39:23 -0800
- To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@imc.org>
On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Robert Siemer wrote: > 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? Or may be I am reading this too closely. > > >> 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. > OK. That makes sense. Subbu
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 05:39:33 UTC