- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:36:45 -0800
- To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > This is defined in the context of persistent connections > that have closed, which is fine, except that retry > behaviour for idempotent requests isn't defined anywhere > else; the reader has to deduct that it's possible by > reading between the lines here. Since automatic > retries are implemented in a number of places (client and > intermediary), I think it should be at least mentioned in > a way that isn't just specific to connections closing, > and as a MAY, not just a MUST NOT on non-idempotent > requests. I.e., I think request retries (as > opposed to connection retries) deserves its own section. I agree that is a good idea. It also affects the Pipelining section, and anywhere else that mentions idempotency. With this new section, maybe the term idempotency can be totally removed from the specification? I agree with Roy [1] that the use of the term in RFC 2616 has caused more trouble than benefit. [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg10759.html - Brian
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 13:37:04 UTC