Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down
"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Tue, 30 April 2013 02:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3768321F9C11 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:40:28 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AFIyDr2GqnCk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C3521F9C10 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX0Te-0000sK-Lg for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:39:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:39:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX0Te-0000sK-Lg@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UX0TV-0000qh-M5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:39:25 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UX0TU-0002wh-5v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:39:25 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.0.0 (Build 4545)) with SMTP id <0019683588@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:38:55 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:38:55 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB9FB65595-D166-434C-AABD-E87EC844DB39"
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqFAyZ4VMfbHnF=SnopZ6PmVqj0R0a8h3whU=gSe7Ky4jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <eme39b037b-f5e0-4835-9153-c89d8d9714c7@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17595.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.271, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.442, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UX0TU-0002wh-5v 9603a850b1a85288b497a555eab38d72
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/eme39b037b-f5e0-4835-9153-c89d8d9714c7@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17701
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@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-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> > > > >On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins ><ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> wrote: >>Section 6.6 of p1 states: >> >>OLD: >> the client SHOULD assume that they will not be processed by the >>server. >>NEW: >> the client SHOULD NOT assume that they will be processed by the >>server. >> > >Agreed; an origin server may also process pipelined requests >concurrently, so request#2 may have been processed when response#1 >causes Connection:close. Given that it's really hard for a client to predict the future, as to whether a pipelined request will be processed or not, or whether a previous resource will return Connection: close or not, and even to tell whether a request will be truly without side-effects, doesn't this mean it's just basically dangerous to pipeline full stop? Do we need a way for a server to communicate which requests may be made with impunity multiple times, and which should only be made once? e.g. safe to retry or not. then only pipeline requests that are safe to retry according to the server (rather than according to some assumption or heuristic at the client, as such things are inevitably wrong on occasion). Adrien > > >> >>Thanks >>Ben >> >> >
- WGLC p1: Tear-down Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Zhong Yu
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Willy Tarreau
- Re: WGLC p1: Tear-down Roy T. Fielding