Re: Updated PATCH draft

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.


Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 05:39:33 UTC