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

"Ken Murchison" <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Wed, 24 April 2013 17:37 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 2523A21F890F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:37:00 -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=[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 Y2AoqHtEhN8r for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8999B21F87B1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UV3bj-0004pX-LI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:35:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:35:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UV3bj-0004pX-LI@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 1UV3bb-0004oo-Pn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:35:43 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.96]) 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 1UV3ba-0004WP-Vb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:35:43 +0000
Received: from 10.71.139.238 (52.sub-174-236-2.myvzw.com [174.236.2.52]) (user=murch mech=LOGIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OHYpEE032112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:34:54 -0400
Message-Id: <201304241734.r3OHYpEE032112@smtp.andrew.cmu.edu>
From: "Ken Murchison" <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:34:51 -0400
User-Agent: LogicMail/2.2.0.81
In-Reply-To: <20130424170638.GD19750@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2010.4.9.4220
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODY_SIZE_1900_1999 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, NO_MESSAGE_ID 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, RDNS_WIRELESS 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __RDNS_POOLED_6 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.96
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.96; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.717, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UV3ba-0004WP-Vb 6095897aaf67d0c420dcc6c15246174d
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/201304241734.r3OHYpEE032112@smtp.andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17546
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 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:06:38 -0400, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:00:42PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> > >2. If the client receives a final status code instead of 100 
> > >(Continue), it
> > >should stop sending request body if it is doing so; it must close the
> > >connection after the response is received.
> > 
> > I don't understand point #2.  If the client submits a request with 
> > Expect:100-continue, I would assume that the client MUST NOT send any 
> > part of the body until it receives 100 (Continue) from the server.  If 
> > the server rejects the request based on the headers (with 412, 415, 417, 
> > etc) there should be no body data in the pipe for either the client or 
> > server to worry about, correct?
> 
> In fact the client can decide that it's been waiting too long for 100
> and decides to send anyway (because some old servers or intermediaries
> do not know about Expect and will wait).
> 
> So what is generally done is that the client sends the headers, waits a
> bit then starts to send data if the server does not respond.

Fair enough. But I would expect that a compliant 1.1 server would respond with 100 (Continue) or failure pretty quickly -- well within the client's "wait" interval.     Given that RFC 2616 is over a decade old, I would like to think that any 1.1 implementation would be compliant with the Expect behavior or should be deprecated. 

Unless we are worried about Expect:100-continue being sent to a 1.0 server, allowing a client to start sending a body in the absence of 100 (Continue) seems like a bad idea to me.  But if this behavior IS needed a client should at least wait several seconds or something longer than the expected roundtrip time.

Am I way off base here?  I'm not privy to all of the history of HTTP.  I only started developing our CalDAV server a couple of years ago.


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer 
Carnegie Mellon University