Re: p2: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 23 April 2013 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA95A21F96A6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQF6sPREp21L for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211D221F93EA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUdRy-0002ww-Gy for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:40:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:40:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUdRy-0002ww-Gy@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UUdRu-0002cY-KX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:39:58 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.61]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UUdRt-0003Vv-PW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:39:58 +0000
Received: from [192.168.137.21] (cpe-76-180-197-142.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.197.142]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3NDdUH9029622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:39:30 -0400
Message-ID: <51768F11.2070707@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:39:29 -0400
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <750CBB7A-3E82-4D2A-871E-159E9F030E6F@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <750CBB7A-3E82-4D2A-871E-159E9F030E6F@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.3.18.170322
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1100_1199 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RATWARE_X_MAILER_CS_B 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.61
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.61; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UUdRt-0003Vv-PW bfd2055ef637b53f6bcdd5e5551409f1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51768F11.2070707@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17500
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:22:37 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> p2 5.1.1.1 explains the semantics of 100-continue: "If the origin 
> server responds with a final status code, it must not have performed 
> the request method and may either close the connection or continue to 
> read and discard the rest of the request."  
>
> In my (admittedly quick) testing, pretty much nobody does this, at 
> least by default; i.e., if I send a GET to a server with Expect: 
> 100-continue, it's going to give me a 200 or 30x, not a 417. Sure, 
> they might send 417 for a request with a body, but as written pretty 
> much no one is conformant.
This bring up a question:  For those methods where a body isn't 
currently defined and/or typically isn't expected, is a server supposed 
to distinguish between cases when the request includes a body vs the 
request includes Expect:100-continue?  Are the correct responses 415 and 
417 respectively?

And what about TRACE?  Is 400 the correct response in both cases?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University