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

Re: ISSUE: MUST a client wait for 100 when doing PUT or POST requests?

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:50:04 -0500 (CDT)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, lawrence@agranat.com, rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970610123525.20075A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3461
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> >> I think, we are coming down on the side saying that a client SHOULD wait
> >> for a 100 (Continue) code before sending the body but can send the whole
> >> thing if it believes that the server will react properly.

> At 09:58 AM 6/10/97 -0700, David W. Morris wrote:
> >The whole notion of insertion of arbitrary delays offends me. The
> >randomness of network latency makes that absurd. 

I agree.

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Yes, but unfortunately, HTTP/1.0 is broken and this is the only way to get
> PUT to work reliably. If you have ever tried to PUT across the Atlantic
> then you would know what I am talking about.

Could you explain why trans-Atlantic POSTs would be more reliable with
100 Continue?  I honestly don't understand.

Currently there many POSTs and most of them are fairly small.  This
could change, but more likely large file submission will be done with
PUT.  Requiring a wait for 100 Continue with each POST will likely at
least double the time and bandwidth of POSTS.  Is there really
evidence that this is a reasonable price to pay?  Are HTTP/1.0 POSTS
so broken that this draconian measure is called for?  I have not
heard of any complaints from service providers that HTTP/1.0 POSTS
are a major problem.  Are there any such complaints?

Here is my point.  Superficially HTTP/1.0 POSTS seems to work well.
The proposed change seems likely to cause a dramatic degredation of
service.  I suspect that it will always be fairly rare for a server to
reject a POST.  Do we really have evidence that requiring 100 Continue
for every POST is a good thing?

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 10:54:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC