IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #467: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 28 May 2013 05:39 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 A4EC421F93E9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 22:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, 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 vvdhswlBDOkz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 22:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BB021F93E8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 22:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhCc0-00038R-Op for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 05:38:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 05:38:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhCc0-00038R-Op@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 1UhCbp-00037V-9E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 05:38:09 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UhCbi-0008IL-MC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 05:38:08 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.184.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06D3622E1F3; Tue, 28 May 2013 01:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <519A52E3.7070109@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:37:37 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D8C3534-73A8-4C5E-81CB-5B9DC434FA02@mnot.net>
References: <CACuKZqGmrDiNQvG0SVw=XXcy_n-BBxK-pnp+ar7uAbnwkumRag@mail.gmail.com> <51780FBA.3080706@andrew.cmu.edu> <20130424170638.GD19750@1wt.eu> <1CD0C86A-CFBF-4DF6-A688-9E4EF549190E@mnot.net> <51961461.2080800@andrew.cmu.edu> <519A52E3.7070109@measurement-factory.com>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.390, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UhCbi-0008IL-MC 347c46cfe454177ea508651ad346d59c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #467: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2D8C3534-73A8-4C5E-81CB-5B9DC434FA02@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18103
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 21/05/2013, at 2:44 AM, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> wrote:

> On 05/17/2013 05:28 AM, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> On 05/16/2013 10:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Note that this mechanism does not change the request message parsing
>>> algorithm; in particular, whether or not a final response status code
>>> is sent, the client still needs to send a complete request message. As
>>> such, if a final status code is received, clients will often choose to
>>> close the connection, rather than send a complete request (e.g., if it
>>> is length-delimited). 
> 
> "the client needs to send a complete message" is perhaps too strong.
> "the client needs to send a complete message if the client wants to keep
> the connection open and the server response allows for a persistent
> connection" may be more appropriate.

Agreed.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email