Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 8, 2009, 8:02:25 AM (10 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

editorial: removed an unnecessary reference to RFC 2068, made another one more specific

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html

    r576 r578  
    471471         <tr>
    472472            <td class="header left"></td>
    473             <td class="header right">May 6, 2009</td>
     473            <td class="header right">May 8, 2009</td>
    474474         </tr>
    475475      </table>
     
    14421442         servers and causing congestion on the Internet. The use of inline images and other associated data often require a client
    14431443         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>.
    14451445      </p>
    14461446      <p id="rfc.section.7.1.1.p.2">Persistent HTTP connections have a number of advantages: </p>
     
    14991499         to. Each persistent connection applies to only one transport link.
    15001500      </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).
    15021502      </p>
    15031503      <h3 id="rfc.section.7.1.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1.4">7.1.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="persistent.practical" href="#persistent.practical">Practical Considerations</a></h3>
     
    15571557         <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"
    15581558            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-header
     1559            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
    15601560            field with the "100-continue" expectation. This exception, the purpose of which is to minimize any client processing delays
    15611561            associated with an undeclared wait for 100 (Continue) status, applies only to HTTP/1.1 requests, and not to requests with
     
    21692169      </p>
    21702170      <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, Scott
     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.RFC2068.4"><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
    21722172         Lawrence, and Larry Masinter for their help. And thanks go particularly to Jeff Mogul and Scott Lawrence for performing the
    21732173         "MUST/MAY/SHOULD" audit.
     
    24092409      <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
    24102410         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>.
    24122412      </p>
    24132413      <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.1.0" href="#changes.from.1.0">Changes from HTTP/1.0</a></h2>
     
    24492449         a new keyword (Connection: close) for declaring non-persistence. See <a href="#header.connection" id="rfc.xref.header.connection.7" title="Connection">Section&nbsp;8.1</a>.
    24502450      </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>.
    24522452      </p>
    24532453      <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2068" href="#changes.from.rfc.2068">Changes from RFC 2068</a></h2>
     
    32453245                  <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2045</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<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>
    32463246                  <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2047</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a class="iref" href="#rfc.xref.RFC2068.6">B</a></li>
     3247                  <li class="indline1"><em>RFC2068</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;&nbsp;<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>
    32493249                     </ul>
    32503250                  </li>
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.xml

    r576 r578  
    17761776   these performance problems and results from a prototype
    17771777   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 good
     1778   measurements of actual HTTP/1.1 implementations show good
    17791779   results <xref target="Nie1997"/>. Alternatives have also been explored, for example,
    17801780   T/TCP <xref target="Tou1998"/>.
     
    19091909<t>
    19101910   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 and
    1912    discussion of the problems with the Keep-Alive header implemented by
    1913    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).
    19141914</t>
    19151915</section>
     
    40094009<t>
    40104010   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"/>.
    40124012</t>
    40134013</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.