Re: Updated PATCH draft

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Robert Siemer wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 03:03:47PM -0800, Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> > I have a comment on this paragraph of this draft.
> >
> > "Clients are advised to take caution when sending multiple PATCH  
> > requests,
> > or sequences of requests that include PATCH, over a pipelined  
> > connection as
> > there are no guarantees that pipelined requests will be processed  
> > by the
> > server in the same order in which the client sends them."
> >
> > Since 2616 says that clients SHOULD NOT pipeline non-idempotent  
> > methods, and
> > since PATCH is a  non-idempotent method, any reason why a similar
> > conformance level is not presented here?
>
> Because it is already in 2616 and the draft points to it, no?

Or may be I am reading this too closely.
> > Secondly, are there cases when pipelined requests will be processed
> > out of order?
>
> At least, could be processed in parallel or decomposed into
> non-pipelined requests in the proxy chain and overtake each other this
> way.

OK. That makes sense.

Subbu