On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:14:15 -0500 Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:25 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > Here we've unset C-L and T-E. but it makes no sense to wait if the > > origin server has no immediate plan to close the connection. > > > > I cannot grok the above. The RFC itself does not make > the differentiation between keepalive connections or not. > So what exactly is the issue? Are you saying we should > handle keepalive connections in this path differently? > How is that supported by the spec? Keep-alive (implicit in HTTP/1.1 absent a Connection: close header) is orthogonal to an unknown message body. Think about it :) STUFF /thisaction HTTP/1.1 Transfer-Encoding: x-cleverness Content-Length: 1000 was a perfectly valid body, but if we drop C-L, and will pass the thousand bytes and sit indefinitely in an HTTP/0.9 body handling loop waiting an indeterminate amount of time for the close of the stream (which isn't immediately forthcoming) something is busted. And I'm not claiming existing behavior was any more correct :)
