- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:20:20 +1000
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Agreed; listing the bugs present in implementations isn't useful. What may be useful is noting that there do seem to be a high proportion of bugs in deployed implementations, and so clients using pipelining need to exercise a fair amount of caution. So, here's a straw-man to add to p1 7.1.2.2: "Some early implementations of HTTP/1.1 servers and proxies have been noted to implement pipelining incorrectly, and some commonly-deployed (if not spec-compliant) devices may interfere with its correct operation. Clients choosing to send pipelined requests on the open Internet should, as a result, do so cautiously." On 05/04/2008, at 5:17 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Hmm. >> >> Any volunteers for providing spec-ready text? > > "Shit happens. Deal with it." > > Seriously, there is no reason to specify all the possible ways > in which messages might get lost on an unreliable connection. > The only thing I would change is to resurrect my original design > for the Keep-Alive header, which indicates how many more requests > are allowed on a given persistent connection. The others are just > single point, non-reproducible bugs. > > ....Roy > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 02:21:00 UTC