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

RE: 1xx Clarification

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:56:14 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850277F075@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Scott Lawrence' <lawrence@agranat.com>, Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3041
The reason for wanting the asynchronous behavior is that it allows for
notifications. As HTTP is being used in more powerful systems an
asynchronous notification system is needed.

The only implementation concern was stated by Larry who was worried
about what this would do to client's object models. I have talked with
Josh Cohen at Netscape's proxy group and he says he is fine with this
interpretation. I have talked with Microsoft's Proxy group and they
concur. I am the PM for Microsoft's client side HTTP implementation and
I am happy with it. I am trying to talk to Netscape's client side people
to hear their thoughts. I haven't had a chance to talk with the Apache
proxy people or any of the other client developers. That is one of the
reasons why I posted to the list, I wanted to hear their thoughts. Do
you have an issue with the proposed interpretation?


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Scott Lawrence [SMTP:lawrence@agranat.com]
> Sent:	Friday, April 11, 1997 7:01 AM
> To:	Josh Cohen
> Cc:	Scott Lawrence; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: 1xx Clarification
> >> 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
>   sometimes.
> --
> Scott Lawrence
> <lawrence@agranat.com>
> Agranat Systems, Inc.
> http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Monday, 14 April 1997 20:33:20 UTC

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