Re: two-phase send concerns

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: Grievances - Wide"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: two-phase send concerns"
• Maybe in reply to: Dave Kristol: "two-phase send concerns"
• Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )"
• Reply: Larry Masinter: "'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )"

To backup .... as I understand the discussion, the purpose of the 2 phase
send was to increase the probablility that the client has a chance to
receive the response. The impression was that some/many TCP implementations
may close a connection in such a way that the response is flushed and
never seen from the client.  The second lesser concern was that by
using a short delay, there was less waste of bandwidth in the failure case.

I like your (Jeffrey Mogul) suggestion for requiring the explict two phase
request from the client in the quiet close case.  I would further
extend your suggestion to get rid of the timeout or make it quite large
and only allow the client to continue when the response arrives.

Dave Morris

• Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: Grievances - Wide"
• Previous message: David W. Morris: "Re: two-phase send concerns"
• Maybe in reply to: Dave Kristol: "two-phase send concerns"
• Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )"
• Reply: Larry Masinter: "'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )"