Re: Two proposals for HTTP/2.0

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: HTTP BOF - Draft agenda (was: Re: HTTP/1.0 draft status)"
• Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "HTTP/1.0 draft status"
• Maybe in reply to: John Franks: "Two proposals for HTTP/2.0"
• Next in thread: Dave Raggett: "Re: Two proposals for HTTP/2.0"

Two points :-

1) Running httpd under inetd is definitively not recommended. Under many
	UNIX implementations the inetd daemon breaks very badly when it
	gets large number of simultaneous requests. So one netscape file
	upload and your whole system is hosed.

2) The proposal to allow specification of the whole URL at the method
	prompt would be an option, not mandatory. The point being that 
	proxies should be intelligent enough to identify requests 
	to themselves.

Phill H-B

• Next message: Simon E Spero: "Re: HTTP BOF - Draft agenda (was: Re: HTTP/1.0 draft status)"
• Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "HTTP/1.0 draft status"
• Maybe in reply to: John Franks: "Two proposals for HTTP/2.0"
• Next in thread: Dave Raggett: "Re: Two proposals for HTTP/2.0"