IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 1xx response semantics

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Tue, 05 July 2011 19:36 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 AA4A621F8548 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.742
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.857, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vBUIgQQsBoA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE98121F8503 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QeBPf-0007YN-Hq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:36:03 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1QeBPZ-0007T8-JJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:35:57 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by maggie.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1QeBPX-0006RE-Km for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:35:57 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Jul 2011 19:35:26 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-185-199.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.185.199] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 05 Jul 2011 21:35:26 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19CP/8T9dtCo1XcX5Z9NdVsG2YWKvBR8eYyJQiVDJ 82lupcy9+pyPc5
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
Cc: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:35:35 +0200
Message-ID: <ppp6171bl31c5j18r7p1369q3pf730m13p@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <13323.1309846383@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAE9FF05-4339-42E4-BC21-9CC0A63CF58C@gbiv.com> <CAAbTgTtK3N=m-Hdz64ybr5xCsjXyVdZeF0AsnqHTxwgxGSO07Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAbTgTtK3N=m-Hdz64ybr5xCsjXyVdZeF0AsnqHTxwgxGSO07Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1QeBPX-0006RE-Km 978144b0b7ce40684c5c81cf17751365
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 1xx response semantics
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ppp6171bl31c5j18r7p1369q3pf730m13p@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10898
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1QeBPf-0007YN-Hq@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:36:03 +0000

* Brian Pane wrote:
>Speaking of the 101/Upgrade mechanism... it seems fundamentally
>incompatible with request pipelining. If the first request in a
>pipeline indicates a willingness to upgrade to some non-HTTP protocol,
>and the server decides to switch to that other protocol upon receipt
>of the first request, the subsequent requests already in the pipeline
>may very well be syntactically invalid in the newly chosen protocol.
>
>Should the HTTP/1.1 spec thus prohibit the use of the Upgrade header
>in pipelined requests, or is the issue too obvious to document
>explicitly?

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010JulSep/0293.html
I mentioned this, I'm not sure if we track this under some issue number.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email