IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: p2: Expectation extensions

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Fri, 26 April 2013 00:03 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 4ECAE21F93F1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:03:18 -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 LTZkq8a1gYcD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC4321F8D2E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVW7H-0006dg-0l for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:02:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:02:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVW7H-0006dg-0l@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UVW7A-0006c2-EV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:02:12 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UVW79-0002NX-MZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:02:12 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.4]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MXTY0-1U2LyJ21V0-00WSdV for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:01:45 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2013 00:01:45 -0000
Received: from p54B4E922.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [84.180.233.34] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 26 Apr 2013 02:01:45 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+/ZvgbnMe/1iDJDQSp8KAppxCVAUnvxX0z38UBI8 bVcncBSMJfy9X2
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:01:45 +0200
Message-ID: <nlgjn8p94fl2hm23tefjtqa2cda62g8tap@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <0509CFF1-0A48-46D9-93F0-5CEF60A9DE37@mnot.net> <ueejn812c32qjethcd4c847tkh68b13mkn@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CACuKZqEG+XXUV7VGY8GV6-ShOoFTBgwUmNKykKGvP41F-erpzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqEG+XXUV7VGY8GV6-ShOoFTBgwUmNKykKGvP41F-erpzA@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=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UVW79-0002NX-MZ 4f55e4e3efc3cafaf09d34694a557556
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Expectation extensions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/nlgjn8p94fl2hm23tefjtqa2cda62g8tap@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17589
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>

* Zhong Yu wrote:
>How about the spec explicitly allows a server to ignore any expectation
>(including 100-continue), since that is the reality anyway?

It would be most helpful if anyone can demonstrate that that is indeed
the reality within some low margin of error. But then, too, I would like
to see some specific re-wording of the relevant text. It is not clear to
me that this properly reflects reality, and even if so, your proposal
seems to go even beyond what Mark Nottingham proposed, and it seems un-
likely to me that we would find consensus on ignoring `100-continue`.
-- 
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