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: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 16:30:17 -0400
Message-Id: <199706102030.QAA02106@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3468

  I never would have dreamed that this would generate so much heat.

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

>>>>> "JF" == John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu> writes:

JF> Currently there many POSTs and most of them are fairly small.  This
JF> could change, but more likely large file submission will be done with

  The semantics of PUT and POST of a file are quite different, both
  will be used but for different things.  One example I know of now is
  that the Internet Printing Protocol working group is looking at POST
  as the mechanism for submitting multipart operations, one or more of
  which is a file to be printed.

JF> Requiring a wait for 100 Continue with each POST will likely at
JF> least double the time and bandwidth of POSTS.

  You weaken your objection; a 100 Continue response is very small
  (most other headers, including even Date, are not required with it).
  No additional transmission is required of the client.  The net
  effect on bandwidth is just the size of the 100 Continue response
  itself, which could be as few as 16 bytes (HTTP/1.1 100CR-LF-CR-LF).
  The additional time is normally one round trip time, or worst case
  the timeout before the client decides to just go ahead.

JF> Is there really evidence that this is a reasonable price to pay?
JF> Are HTTP/1.0 POSTS so broken that this draconian measure is called
JF> for?  I have not heard of any complaints from service providers
JF> that HTTP/1.0 POSTS are a major problem.  Are there any such
JF> complaints?

  Not from a service provider, but from a server vendor.

  I posted some discussion of this a while ago, which Henrik provided
  a pointer to, but I'll repeat part of it now.

  Our server provides the capability to use different access control
  for serving vs. submitting a form.  This is handy in that the same
  page can be used to display the current state of the server and to
  modify it by changing something and submitting it.  Since the
  submission may require new authentication, it _saves_ bandwidth if
  the server can send the '401 Unauthorized' response before the POST
  body has been sent.

        Client                               Server
          |                                    |
       >1 |-> GET /form.html HTTP/1.1 -------->|
          |                                    |
          |<------------- HTTP/1.1 200 Ok <----|
          |               body contains form   |
          |                                    |
       >2 |-> POST /form.html HTTP/1.1 ------->|
          |        (no authorization, no body) |
          |                                    |
          |<---- HTTP/1.1 401 Unauthorized <---|
          |                                    |
          |                                    |
       >3 |-> POST /form.html HTTP/1.1 ------->|
          |        (with authorization)        |
          |                                    |
          |<------- HTTP/1.1 100 Continue <----|
          |                                    |
          |-> (form data) -------------------->|
          |                                    |
          |<------------- HTTP/1.1 200 Ok <----|
          |               ...                  |

  Request 1 is sent for a resource which contains a form, but which is
  not protected by any realm.  The resource is returned, and the
  client has the opportunity to note that the server is 1.1.

  Request 2 is sent to post the form, but submission of the form is
  protected by some realm, so this request is rejected.  The server
  can determine this before the request body is sent.

  Request 3 is the retry of 2 with authorization information; after
  the headers are received, the server returns the 100 Continue to
  indicate to the client that it is ok to proceed with the request

  If the client had sent the form data immediately with Request 2, it
  would have been just discarded by the server - a waste of time and
  bandwidth, since the body must be resent with the authentication
  data as part of request 3.

JF> The proposed change seems likely to cause a dramatic degredation of
JF> service.  I suspect that it will always be fairly rare for a server to
JF> reject a POST.  Do we really have evidence that requiring 100 Continue
JF> for every POST is a good thing?

  Dramatic?  What is the evidence for that?

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 1997 13:34:47 UTC

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