Re: p2: Requirements upon proxies for Expect

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 April 2013 04:15 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 76C6221F893B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, 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 ph3RwWdzaZrv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C3721F8928 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UU8AA-0000Dx-9M for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:15:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:15:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UU8AA-0000Dx-9M@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU8A7-0000DI-3q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:15:31 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UU8A6-0007pV-FE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:15:31 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1515350A85 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <08A7729A-6B1F-46D2-AFA8-C37F6CFECD2A@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:15:06 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B1D7556A-EA82-4AFC-A7E2-8B938F8F06CE@mnot.net>
References: <08A7729A-6B1F-46D2-AFA8-C37F6CFECD2A@mnot.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.384, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UU8A6-0007pV-FE 78ef59860ed9f6b2f88b37d6164598fd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Requirements upon proxies for Expect
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B1D7556A-EA82-4AFC-A7E2-8B938F8F06CE@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17459
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>

Now:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/458

On 20/04/2013, at 7:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> p2 5.1.1 "Requirements for HTP/1.1 proxies" bullet one effectively requires proxies to forward ALL requests with Expect: 100-continue if the inbound server is HTTP/1.1 -- even if the request is a GET.
> 
> I know that this isn't the intent, but that's how it reads; suggest qualifying this to only apply to requests with bodies.
> 
> The next bullet requires proxies to respond with a 417 if the inbound server is HTTP/1.0. Just curious here - why? Wouldn't the maximally interoperable thing be to generate a 100-continue yourself? While the client *could* resubmit the request, they probably won't, because as far as they know, the origin told them not to.
> 
> Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/