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: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:11:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970421110744.23388C-100000@s1.Agranat.COM>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3105

> I believe the argument against a bit-bucket is that the server has to waste
> resources to consume the incoming bits, and network bandwidth gets wasted at a
> time when we're trying to reduce HTTP-induced network bandwidth.  It's hard to
> know how much of a problem either of these *really* is.  Does anyone have
> numbers for how often servers reject PUT/POST because they can't accept the
> content?  My guess is it's not a big problem yet.  Can we afford to defer the
> solution until it is? 
> Dave Kristol

The most frequent case for our implementation at least will, I suspect, 
be when the server has configured different realms for serving and 
submitting a form.  This turns out to be a common situation in an 
embedded system because it saves memory and simplifies interface design; 
the same page is used to display current configuration information and to 
change it, but the authentication required is different.
Received on Monday, 21 April 1997 08:15:25 UTC

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