IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages")

Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> Fri, 28 May 2010 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BD363A6921 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsoMDuCj7IkQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692FB3A68D0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1OI5L4-0004vC-Aj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:35:26 +0000
Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.63]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1OI5Kw-0004sP-AG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:35:18 +0000
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <wenboz@google.com>) id 1OI5Ku-0008FV-Eb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 19:35:18 +0000
Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o4SJYnRH028379 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:49 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1275075289; bh=qiwfWbl29J7UWdz0cDdYyamuqCY=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Content-Type; b=XoZy9VLYt3hgBVP0CCTA9hvX7/eUSwzlkm/SZ1izkNEMeghMowda0bN8mc/Kb/v++ I4ucWYM6+qD+xLfnJj1SA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: content-type:x-system-of-record; b=pGIYQyjsZR7dyK0QwhHd7dshlb71fQ/NRFml2Nq4l9KQ2Ec/ts/vuVK6JSjMmFJAW i/fEHFX8YAHsTk0BN0qrw==
Received: from gwb1 (gwb1.prod.google.com [10.200.2.1]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o4SJYKDZ010577 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:48 -0700
Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so1157042gwb.40 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.199.3 with SMTP id w3mr850931agf.24.1275075288245; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.91.36.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BF39830.5040003@gmx.de>
References: <AANLkTikEFrcJ8Zc8jTIGLaAZYvSj1Jj2r3ng3VA8DN6e@mail.gmail.com> <1273825486.7134.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100514173312.GA10133@shareable.org> <1273860576.10328.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> <AANLkTinikDrexPp6ngpxTHBQdWyZ6PN9g52_WqdaD-dD@mail.gmail.com> <1273909717.9968.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <AANLkTikCN3aqJOhy8BX8ahd82PGTycmG_4jAwJJCqirN@mail.gmail.com> <1274042894.3630.15.camel@localhost> <AANLkTikPIdVkInFKl9HlR9Mjpyk4EPGq1hEwavHu1pSM@mail.gmail.com> <4BF39830.5040003@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:34:48 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikTPlQElA83C5Ro6ii1WhgmFcKUi0-U9PXSw8XF@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636284ac49e26340487ac995a"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, DKIM_SIGNED=0.001, DKIM_VERIFIED=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: bart.w3.org 1OI5Ku-0008FV-Eb 631e4f8cf7daae0aca6e746bf961f699
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Concurrent non-error response disallowed. ("clarification of 7.2.2. Monitoring Connections for Error Status Messages")
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/AANLkTikTPlQElA83C5Ro6ii1WhgmFcKUi0-U9PXSw8XF@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/8774
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1OI5L4-0004vC-Aj@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 19:35:26 +0000

Thanks for everyone who has replied to this thread.

Given that valid use cases do exist and the current HTTP spec hasn't
explicitly disallowed concurrent bi-directional communication, I have submit
a draft document as "Implications of Full-Duplex HTTP (
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhu-http-fullduplex-01.txt)". The purpose of
this draft is to encourage public adoption of full-duplex HTTP and as well
to help incorporating full-duplex HTTP into other open protocols.

Comments/corrections are very much welcome!

- Wenbo
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhu-http-fullduplex-01.txt>

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 17.05.2010 02:30, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> A more general question is how well proxies support chunk-encoded
>> requests today, since browsers don't generate chunk-encoded requests.
>> Would like to hear your experiences on this
>> ...
>>
>
> My company used to work on a WebDAV client component in SAP Netweaver's
> Knowledge Management (for connecting remote WebDAV servers). We certainly
> used chunked encoding in requests (serializing WebDAV XML). We occasionally
> had issues with that, but as far as I recall that was because of broken
> origin servers (subsequently being fixed), not proxies.
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email