IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 1xx response semantics

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Tue, 05 July 2011 18:37 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 E90F421F88F3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:56 -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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PzwKJ-+UeeqA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3512421F88EF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QeAV8-0007KS-Le for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:37:38 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1QeAV2-0007JA-3h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:37:32 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.207] helo=homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1QeAV1-0008Bn-0m for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:37:32 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3104110072; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=gbiv.com; b=k9cnBwO88lnwa1pm yAfdcQWV89u6+lFTWvzJAipbq2qEAbpj8aVvlgrZ/JWstj1kNsBEqwk5XrEDi6Wu L+MYS4UvGGhpmYP5YfAUm3qKbNYoyEBGiuXmfaKMZkq6cRxKuOjw/X5XyP8Ycd91 frlW1yzK0mFDxDw8b8oCxfoHSIk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=1CpKrW8f6sJD3Kloy4ZQlmBqXlA=; b=zqmpqXbS+GKhUQTU4pJao1eVIAUc 2RY8pOOxcYnuF+urwGEFgKiyFbhvf2iPr92/2xj+krY+MbKVYsNO88cfZtVvCvJx Lpcdo9VCF7/zuJ2uXz2CBfTzYv0dNWN0kDJp5EJs+C+YyhIh7bA5BCku4c0Fd26D C/OZ6+hIAtDQ+lc=
Received: from [10.134.89.86] (unknown [75.103.10.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1D9410062; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <13323.1309846383@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:37:08 -0700
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <CAE9FF05-4339-42E4-BC21-9CC0A63CF58C@gbiv.com>
References: <13323.1309846383@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.207; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1QeAV1-0008Bn-0m 4159f20cee1bc68b5d274c70286ab97f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 1xx response semantics
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAE9FF05-4339-42E4-BC21-9CC0A63CF58C@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10896
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: <E1QeAV8-0007KS-Le@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:37:38 +0000

On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <20110705051401.GB12909@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
> 
>> In fact, 101 is a final status while 100 is an intermediate one.
> 
> That has always bugged, me: I think 101 should have been a 2xx or 3xx
> response.
> 
> Maybe simply acknowleding rather than generalizing from this mistake
> is the best idea ?

Oh, for crying out loud.

101 is an interim response.  The first response in the new protocol
after an Upgrade is the response to the first request.  If I send an
Upgrade to waka on an HTTP GET request, the waka server will respond
with 101 in HTTP and then the equivalent of a 200 response in waka.
There is no second request.  That's the whole point in including a
zero-latency bootstrap upgrade within HTTP.

....Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email