Subject: Re: Whatever happenned to HTTP 1.1 Pipelining

From: Marc Slemko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:36:22 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

>      Thankyou for digging that up, but does it
> mean that by a server SHOULD or MUST use self-defined message
> lengths? This doesn't seem to give the browser author any assurance
> that his pipelined requests won't be aborted by a premature connection
> close due to a no CONTENT-LENGTH response.

Then they have to resend the requsts to which they have not received 
responses.  This is why only idempotent requests can be pipelined.

> 
>      Seems to me that you only pipeline after you've gotton one
> request through a connection because you don't know whether the
> other end supports persistent connections. After that first request, which
> handles the negotiation, you'd like to be able to pipeline with worry about the
> pipeline being
> cut off.

You always have to worry about the possibility that the pipeline is cut
off.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:22:16 -0400

Doug.......................

"Carl Kugler" <[email-masked]> on 04/27/2001 11:53:53 AM

                                                              

 To:      Doug Dillon/HNS@HNS                                 
                                                              
 cc:                                                          

 Subject: Re: Whatever happenned to HTTP 1.1 Pipelining       

I found this sentence in section 8.1.2.1, Negotation:

In order to remain persistent, all messages on the connection MUST have a
self-defined message length (i.e., one not defined by closure of the
connection), as described in section 4.4.

     -Carl

                    [email-masked]
                                         To:     Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS
                    04/27/2001           cc:
                    08:36 AM             Subject:     Re: Whatever happenned to
HTTP 1.1
                                          Pipelining

     I naturally thought about that, but is there anything is the RFC
that says that Transfer-Encoding: chunked SHOULD or MUST be used on
persistent
HTTP 1.1 connections instead of sending with no content-length?

     I don't recall seeing that.

     Doug................

"Carl Kugler" <[email-masked]> on 04/27/2001 10:22:42 AM

 To:      Doug Dillon/HNS@HNS

 cc:      [email-masked]

 Subject: Re: Whatever happenned to HTTP 1.1 Pipelining

>     The biggest one that comes to mind is fact that one
> of the responses in the pipeline may not have a content-length.
> What could be done about that?

Use Transfer-Encoding: chunked.

     -Carl