W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: 1xx Clarification

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:01:20 -0400
Message-Id: <199704111401.KAA06573@devnix.agranat.com>
To: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3012

>> We would actually prefer to see this set of rules made more general
>> in that we'd like it to apply to any POST, not just one being
>> retried (which may or may not have been what was intended).

>>>>> "JC" == Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com> replies:

JC> If the 100 is only supposed to happen on a retried request, then
JC> how does a server know if its a retried request or not ?

  I was unclear - what I meant was that I would like to see the client
  always wait for a 100 response following the headers on a 1.1 POST,
  not just when it is retrying one that was interrupted.

  Our current behaviour is that we will send the 100 Continue after
  reading the headers on any 1.1 POST which we think is ok (it may
  still be rejected if the authentication digest does not check out,
  but we can't know that until we get the body).

JC> BTW: was 'Yoland' meant to be an abbreviation for Yaron Goland ? :)

  Yes, my apologies, Yaron - my fingers are faster than my brain

Scott Lawrence                                       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.                               http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Friday, 11 April 1997 07:05:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC