100 Continue clarification

Olivier Boel EXT <olivier.boel@clearstream.com> Fri, 10 April 2020 10:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD48B3A2076 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=clearstream.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGQV7TyoAQ4H for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051483A2075 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 03:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jMr4f-0002aH-0A for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:39:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:39:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jMr4f-0002aH-0A@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from www-data by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <olivier.boel@clearstream.com>) id 1jMr4d-0002Y7-DX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:39:47 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <olivier.boel@clearstream.com>) id 1jMWWJ-0000LZ-58 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:42:59 +0000
Received: from mail10.clearstream.com ([]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <olivier.boel@clearstream.com>) id 1jMWWG-00009y-6M for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:42:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=clearstream.com; s=clearstream; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=44T5o+BNBDOKann+tmerKeOkP3gvBMB2D1lBSHvAOjw=; b=m9rRb6KPeRhjJKHTdeS1dAAkXedavrcUEkllJXbksJDUhN0ak/yvfA3Q lUZ9i/4yxYiMlGuA8ISH/lXyrd9xwN33T8BEI76wb/S4pRjaXmvZfg1Km HarTUaEsCskwOsMH2csuva5hPuuW98BLlccwbZX45w2FhBxSZcl4aaG4Q M=;
IronPort-SDR: QRf+0l/HTVIKxRItj+JxmPeQjvARhrOedX+9FxMk+4eCV3b63yMIpGsggNM9TIpXHczdtbm98r +B3ZBf5Ewx/w==
X-PostX-Reply-Enabled: False
Received: from unknown (HELO FRPGBS02.oa.pnrad.net) ([]) by cinkc039.nw.lan with ESMTP; 09 Apr 2020 14:42:25 +0200
Received: from mail pickup service by FRPGBS02.oa.pnrad.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:42:25 +0200
Received: from frpdlpm01.nw.lan ([]) by FRPGBS02.oa.pnrad.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(8.5.9600.16384); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:42:25 +0200
Received: from LUPEXCH01.oa.pnrad.net (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 076E7EBAEFE09C243DA2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:42:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from LUPEXCH04.oa.pnrad.net ( by LUPEXCH01.oa.pnrad.net ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:42:24 +0200
Received: from LUPEXCH04.oa.pnrad.net ([fe80::f1bf:94b2:fbcf:7b0c]) by LUPEXCH04.oa.pnrad.net ([fe80::f1bf:94b2:fbcf:7b0c%26]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 14:42:24 +0200
From: Olivier Boel EXT <olivier.boel@clearstream.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: 100 Continue clarification
Thread-Index: AdYOZqdqwNMwO4umRWuvi62PiZN53Q==
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:42:24 +0000
Message-ID: <8ab91974ac914933ae7ef821c18dd717@clearstream.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-bjprotectivemarking: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?><sisl xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" sislVersion="0" policy="5e216652-7cb1-42d3-a22f-fb5c7f348db5" origin="defaultValue" xmlns="http://www.boldonjames.com/2008/01/sie/internal/label"><element uid="id_classification_internalonly" value="" /></sisl>
dbg_classification_name: Internal
dbg_classification_id: 2
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8ab91974ac914933ae7ef821c18dd717clearstreamcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2020 12:42:25.0063 (UTC) FILETIME=[5218EB70:01D60E6C]
X-GBS-PROC: e3tBw+SCCvJnnwvKOFN/6Nd+SAV9a11TKjdKrGq4i+0=
X-GRP-TAN: FRPGBS02@91A56BBFB5184E7AA375E83C9C411D82
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=olivier.boel@clearstream.com; helo=mail10.clearstream.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jMWWG-00009y-6M 3ad586d30e5752a0b13fab9f1ddc1125
X-caa-id: 3ded9caf28
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: 100 Continue clarification
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/8ab91974ac914933ae7ef821c18dd717@clearstream.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37497
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The below email is classified: Internal


I have some doubts regarding how client should act in case server replies to "Expect: 100 Continue" with a final status (> 199).
RFC says: A server that responds with a final status code before reading the entire message body SHOULD indicate in that response whether it intends to close the connection or continue reading and discarding the request message.
I would translate "whether it intends to close the connection" into "Connection: close" and "continue reading and discarding the request message" into "Connection: keep-alive".
In this latter case, IMHO, as the server already sent a final status (meaning "the request-line and header fields are sufficient to cause an immediate success, redirect, or error response"), client should understand it is not worthwhile to send the message body before actually doing so (which can improve efficiency when the message body is huge or when the client anticipates that an error is likely) even though server says "Connection: keep-alive", but rather send the next request.
Otherwise, the only way for the server to prevent the client sending the message body is to close the connection, which is rather drastic and not so in line with HTTP/1.1.
Can anyone clarify this?


Olivier B.
Diese E-Mail enthaelt vertrauliche oder rechtlich geschuetzte Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfaenger sind, informieren Sie bitte
sofort den Absender und loeschen Sie diese E-Mail. Das unbefugte Kopieren
dieser E-Mail oder die unbefugte Weitergabe der enthaltenen Informationen
ist nicht gestattet.

The information contained in this message is confidential or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and
delete this message. Any unauthorised copying of this message or
unauthorised distribution of the information contained herein is prohibited.

Legally required information for business correspondence/
Gesetzliche Pflichtangaben fuer Geschaeftskorrespondenz: