On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 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 > The above would not be keptalive. It can't be.
