RE: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of David Morris
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:05 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1
> Use caution for anything which might re-order processing of 
> transactions which are not idempotent. Pipelining includes 
> some rules regarding waiting for responses in those cases. I 
> think you are attempting to mix apples and oranges and are 
> going to confuse the reader. If I understand SCTP correctly, 
> each SCTP stream is equivalent to a unique TCP connection in 
> terms of packet flow management. So your different streams  
> is equivalent to multiple connections under classic HTTP/TCP. 
> That being the case, HTTP pipelining rules and discussion 
> applies to each individual SCTP stream and anything below 
> that layer shouldn't be considered by HTTP.
> Pipelining retains the order of requests within a TCP 
> connection. Again per my understanding SCTP retains the order 
> within the SCTP stream but not between streams so to compare 
> behavior at the SCTP transport level with behavior at the TCP 
> connection level makes no sense to me.

Your understanding of SCTP streams is accurate. What you are saying
confirms my earlier suspicions that the "pipelining" section in 2616
actually defines "pipelining over TCP" and not "pipelining over a
transport connection".

I suppose a spec describing HTTP over SCTP should accurately define
"pipelining over SCTP streams" and discuss how it relates to 2616. 


Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 22:39:55 UTC