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: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:09:16 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850299D9CF@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: "'doug_crow@cacheflow.com'" <doug_crow@cacheflow.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3068
I believe we should leave this issue open. I feel that Roy's attitude is
best, "If you don't understand it, then dump it." If others need to
solve this problem they are free to add headers, new 1xx messages with
bodies, etc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 15, 1997 11:21 PM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'doug_crow@cacheflow.com'; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: 1xx Clarification
> > Your argument has the underlying assumption that the notification
> > information was "meant" for a particular user. There are many
> scenarios,
> > such as the server saying things like "I am going down" or "My
> resources
> > are getting limited" where the asynchronous notification is meant
> for
> > whomever has the connection open.
> > 
> Well, so 1xx messages sent between a request and a response
> apply to that response, but 1xx messages sent without
> an outstanding request only apply "generically" to whomever
> has the connection open. Given the possibility of pipelining,
> it might be hard to tell which case you have. If I pipeline
> two requests and I get a 1xx after the first response and
> before the second, was it generated AFTER the second request
> was received or before?
> --
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 00:11:17 UTC

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