Re: Comments on draft-ietf-v11-spec-00

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Peter J Churchyard: "Re: Where should Digest go next."
• Previous message: Peter J Churchyard: "comments on proxy-authenticate."
• In reply to: Peter J Churchyard: "Comments on draft-ietf-v11-spec-00"

> Section 8.4 POST (and others)

> This section discusses a two phase process for the processing of POST requests.
> Part of the process is a five second pause.

> Use of this type of mechanism cannot work in general! It is not possible
> to design a reliable mechanism where the lask of a response in a timeframe
> such as this is part of the protocol.

There was extensive discussion of this issue under the subject lines:

> two-phase send concerns
> 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns)
> A Hybred PUT Scheme (was Re: 'PUT' ...)
> safe PUT

with contributors:
	dmk@allegra.att.com (Dave Kristol)
	"David W. Morris" <dwm@shell.portal.com>
	"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ics.uci.edu>
	koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman)
	Roger Gonzalez <rg@caffeine.server.net>
	Arjun Ray <aray@pipeline.com>
	Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
	Rohit Khare <khare@pest.w3.org>
	Dave Long <dave@navisoft.com>
	Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>

It would be useful for some subset of you to get together and create
either a recommended set of edits for the HTTP/1.1 proposal and/or a
separate document. 

• Next message: Peter J Churchyard: "Re: Where should Digest go next."
• Previous message: Peter J Churchyard: "comments on proxy-authenticate."
• In reply to: Peter J Churchyard: "Comments on draft-ietf-v11-spec-00"