Changeset 578 for draft-ietf-httpbis
- Timestamp:
- 08/05/09 15:02:25 (13 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html
r576 r578 471 471 <tr> 472 472 <td class="header left"></td> 473 <td class="header right">May 6, 2009</td>473 <td class="header right">May 8, 2009</td> 474 474 </tr> 475 475 </table> … … 1442 1442 servers and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and other associated data often require a client 1443 1443 to make multiple requests of the same server in a short amount of time. Analysis of these performance problems and results 1444 from a prototype implementation are available <a href="#Pad1995" id="rfc.xref.Pad1995.1"><cite title="Improving HTTP Latency">[Pad1995]</cite></a> <a href="#Spe" id="rfc.xref.Spe.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems">[Spe]</cite></a>. Implementation experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (<cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2">RFC 2068</cite>)implementations show good results <a href="#Nie1997" id="rfc.xref.Nie1997.1"><cite title="Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG">[Nie1997]</cite></a>. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, T/TCP <a href="#Tou1998" id="rfc.xref.Tou1998.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance">[Tou1998]</cite></a>.1444 from a prototype implementation are available <a href="#Pad1995" id="rfc.xref.Pad1995.1"><cite title="Improving HTTP Latency">[Pad1995]</cite></a> <a href="#Spe" id="rfc.xref.Spe.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance Problems">[Spe]</cite></a>. Implementation experience and measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 implementations show good results <a href="#Nie1997" id="rfc.xref.Nie1997.1"><cite title="Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG">[Nie1997]</cite></a>. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, T/TCP <a href="#Tou1998" id="rfc.xref.Tou1998.1"><cite title="Analysis of HTTP Performance">[Tou1998]</cite></a>. 1445 1445 </p> 1446 1446 <p id="rfc.section.7.1.1.p.2">Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: </p> … … 1499 1499 to. Each persistent connection applies to only one transport link. 1500 1500 </p> 1501 <p id="rfc.section.7.1.3.p.3">A proxy server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see <a href=" #RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> for information and discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by many HTTP/1.0 clients).1501 <p id="rfc.section.7.1.3.p.3">A proxy server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.7.1">Section 19.7.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a> for information and discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by many HTTP/1.0 clients). 1502 1502 </p> 1503 1503 <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.4">7.1.4</a> <a id="persistent.practical" href="#persistent.practical">Practical Considerations</a></h3> … … 1557 1557 <li>An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> send a 100 (Continue) response if the request message does not include an Expect request-header field with the "100-continue" 1558 1558 expectation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a 100 (Continue) response if such a request comes from an HTTP/1.0 (or earlier) client. There is an exception to this 1559 rule: for compatibility with <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068. 4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, a server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> send a 100 (Continue) status in response to an HTTP/1.1 PUT or POST request that does not include an Expect request-header1559 rule: for compatibility with <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, a server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> send a 100 (Continue) status in response to an HTTP/1.1 PUT or POST request that does not include an Expect request-header 1560 1560 field with the "100-continue" expectation. This exception, the purpose of which is to minimize any client processing delays 1561 1561 associated with an undeclared wait for 100 (Continue) status, applies only to HTTP/1.1 requests, and not to requests with … … 2169 2169 </p> 2170 2170 <p id="rfc.section.11.p.4">Thanks to the "cave men" of Palo Alto. You know who you are.</p> 2171 <p id="rfc.section.11.p.5">Jim Gettys (the editor of <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>) wishes particularly to thank Roy Fielding, the editor of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068. 5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, along with John Klensin, Jeff Mogul, Paul Leach, Dave Kristol, Koen Holtman, John Franks, Josh Cohen, Alex Hopmann, Scott2171 <p id="rfc.section.11.p.5">Jim Gettys (the editor of <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>) wishes particularly to thank Roy Fielding, the editor of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, along with John Klensin, Jeff Mogul, Paul Leach, Dave Kristol, Koen Holtman, John Franks, Josh Cohen, Alex Hopmann, Scott 2172 2172 Lawrence, and Larry Masinter for their help. And thanks go particularly to Jeff Mogul and Scott Lawrence for performing the 2173 2173 "MUST/MAY/SHOULD" audit. … … 2409 2409 <p id="rfc.section.B.p.5">For most implementations of HTTP/1.0, each connection is established by the client prior to the request and closed by the 2410 2410 server after sending the response. Some implementations implement the Keep-Alive version of persistent connections described 2411 in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.7.1">Section 19.7.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068. 6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.2411 in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.7.1">Section 19.7.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>. 2412 2412 </p> 2413 2413 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a> <a id="changes.from.1.0" href="#changes.from.1.0">Changes from HTTP/1.0</a></h2> … … 2449 2449 a new keyword (Connection: close) for declaring non-persistence. See <a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.7" title="Connection">Section 8.1</a>. 2450 2450 </p> 2451 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.3">The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection: Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in <a href=" #RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.7"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>.2451 <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.3">The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection: Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.7.1">Section 19.7.1</a> of <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>. 2452 2452 </p> 2453 2453 <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a> <a id="changes.from.rfc.2068" href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2> … … 3245 3245 <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2045</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2045.1">1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2045.2">3.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2045.3">11</a>, <a class="iref" href="#RFC2045"><b>12.2</b></a></li> 3246 3246 <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2047</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2047.1">4.2</a>, <a class="iref" href="#RFC2047"><b>12.2</b></a></li> 3247 <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2068</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.1">3.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.2">7.1. 1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.3">7.1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.4">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.5">11</a>, <a class="iref" href="#RFC2068"><b>12.2</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.6">B</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.7">B.2</a><ul class="ind">3248 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 19.7.1</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068. 6">B</a></li>3247 <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2068</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.1">3.1</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.2">7.1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.3">7.2.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.4">11</a>, <a class="iref" href="#RFC2068"><b>12.2</b></a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.5">B</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.6">B.2</a><ul class="ind"> 3248 <li class="indline1"><em>Section 19.7.1</em> <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.2">7.1.3</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.5">B</a>, <a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.6">B.2</a></li> 3249 3249 </ul> 3250 3250 </li> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml
r576 r578 1776 1776 these performance problems and results from a prototype 1777 1777 implementation are available <xref target="Pad1995"/> <xref target="Spe"/>. Implementation experience and 1778 measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 (<xref target="RFC2068" x:fmt="none">RFC 2068</xref>)implementations show good1778 measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 implementations show good 1779 1779 results <xref target="Nie1997"/>. Alternatives have also been explored, for example, 1780 1780 T/TCP <xref target="Tou1998"/>. … … 1909 1909 <t> 1910 1910 A proxy server &MUST-NOT; establish a HTTP/1.1 persistent connection 1911 with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see <xref target="RFC2068"/> for information and1912 discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by1913 many HTTP/1.0 clients).1911 with an HTTP/1.0 client (but see <xref x:sec="19.7.1" x:fmt="of" target="RFC2068"/> 1912 for information and discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header 1913 implemented by many HTTP/1.0 clients). 1914 1914 </t> 1915 1915 </section> … … 4009 4009 <t> 4010 4010 The original HTTP/1.0 form of persistent connections (the Connection: 4011 Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in <xref target="RFC2068"/>.4011 Keep-Alive and Keep-Alive header) is documented in <xref x:sec="19.7.1" x:fmt="of" target="RFC2068"/>. 4012 4012 </t> 4013 4013 </section>
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.