IETF Logo Mail Archive

Pipelining in HTTP 1.1

"Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)" <prenatar@cisco.com> Mon, 30 March 2009 21:29 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 B64EC28C0E7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 MAj3KMDrAgRQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD5F3A6BB9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1LoP2n-00073U-Ou for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:29:21 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <prenatar@cisco.com>) id 1LoP2d-00072d-MN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:29:11 +0000
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <prenatar@cisco.com>) id 1LoP2U-00053K-JK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:29:11 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="163957795"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 21:27:25 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2ULRPgs006350; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:27:25 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ULROFJ010472; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:27:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-214.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.75]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:27:17 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17E.4CBE4571"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:27:16 -0400
Message-ID: <C14B21C3CFBE6F4C81665B29F9880D3E0758A2D9@xmb-rtp-214.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1
Thread-Index: Acmxfkwj5nvPFq0KTl6CO3pZeYBOaQ==
From: "Preethi Natarajan (prenatar)" <prenatar@cisco.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Cc: Jonathan Leighton <leighton@cis.udel.edu>, "Paul D. Amer" <amer@cis.udel.edu>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:27:17.0199 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CF685F0:01C9B17E]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4157; t=1238448445; x=1239312445; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=prenatar@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Preethi=20Natarajan=20(prenatar)=22=20<prenatar @cisco.com> |Subject:=20Pipelining=20in=20HTTP=201.1 |Sender:=20; bh=RklwMAdEcUppI7xKxR7EVta1Whee8EWajjVg5un+O28=; b=cW3P5HHBmZTGhf8RXaz+mUXewb8AMxWYNBChxEVIVSKSVRIr+/ZfCMvcNm KYZ2RFiEOXe0u8KTv5BEFKk/h+NHLGcV+0QTc63TxmVQZEKL394zdL9Ruzkg WN3DBCR8Xb;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=prenatar@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, DKIM_POLICY_TESTING=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1LoP2U-00053K-JK 07402d34b75f687bc8cd0fd64492bf96
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Pipelining in HTTP 1.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/C14B21C3CFBE6F4C81665B29F9880D3E0758A2D9@xmb-rtp-214.amer.cisco.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/6062
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: <E1LoP2n-00073U-Ou@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:29:21 +0000

Hello folks,

I would like your comments on the following. This is w.r.t. HTTP over
SCTP (draft-natarajan-http-over-sctp-01) and I am trying to comprehend
"pipelining" in the context of HTTP 1.1.

>From Section 8.1.2.2 of RFC2616: 

"A client that supports persistent connections MAY "pipeline" its
requests (i.e., send multiple requests without waiting for each
response). A server MUST send its responses to those requests in the
same order that the requests were received."

We (SCTP folks) assume that "persistent connection" in this section
refers to a persistent _transport_connection. When multiple HTTP
requests and responses are sent back-to-back on a persistent transport
connection, the HTTP transactions are pipelined.

In our HTTP over SCTP streams design, we recommend transmitting HTTP
requests/responses over different SCTP streams, but note that these
reqeusts/responses are transmitted back-to-back within an SCTP transport
connection. I.e., the HTTP transactions are pipelined across multiple
streams of an SCTP transport connection but are not pipelined within an
SCTP stream. I am tempted to say that this design still confirms to the
"pipelining" definition as per RFC2616. 

Thoughts?
Preethi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email