- From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:35:32 +0200
- To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Brian Pane wrote: > It probably wouldn't hurt to adjust the wording to that section to > clarify the "for which a response was not received" intent. Would the > following phrasing be an improvement? Yes, sounds perfect. Though I cannot say, whether it is just me that has difficulties with the text.. Jan > > "A client that has issued pipelined requests MUST also be prepared to > resend any requests for which it has not received responses if the > server closes the connection before sending responses to all of the > requests." > > Thanks, > -Brian > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Eric Lawrence > <ericlaw@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> That interpretation wouldn't make any sense. The notion is that the client must be prepared to resend any request *for which a response was not received*. >> >> -Eric >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Algermissen >> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:17 AM >> To: HTTP Working Group >> Subject: Pipelining clarification >> >> Hi, >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16#section-7.1.2.2 states >> >> >> "Clients MUST also be prepared to resend their requests >> if the server closes the connection before sending all of the >> corresponding responses." >> >> >> Does that imply that a client needs to resend *all* of the pipelined requests if not all responses are received? >> >> If so, this implies (for me at least) that the client cannot use a response of a pipelined request until all responses have successfully been received >> >> Is that a correct interpretation? >> >> Practically, this would limit the usability of pipelined requests in async contexts because the client needs to collect all response before using them. Hence the question: what is the rationale for needing to re-do *all* requests? Can't I just redo those requests that I did not receive until the pipelining got interrupted? >> >> >> >> Jan >> >> P.S. What would, BTW, be the most appropriate place to discuss pipelining issues and ask questions? >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 15:35:58 UTC