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

Re: A new suggestion on 100 CONTINUE

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:57:17 -0500 (CDT)
To: George Carrette <George_Carrette@iacnet.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970611115013.22065B-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3493
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, George Carrette wrote:

> John, your optimization suggestion:
> >>This would at least permit the server not to send "100 CONTINUE" when the
> >>POST data arrives in the same packet as some of the headers.
> seems non-robust enough with respect to variations in network
> and operating system conditions that it could be seriously troublesome.
> There must be a better way that doesn't cross abstraction (whatever)
> layers like that.

Could you explain how it fails to be robust?  The server looks to 
see if data from the body has been received.  If so, it knows the
client is not waiting to send it and the "100 CONTINUE" is pointless.
If not it sends "100 CONTINUE".   If network conditions delay the
arrival of the body a useless response is sent, but the alternative
is *always*  to send that response.

The reference to TCP packets was purely explanatory.  The proposed
modification to RFC2068 does not cross abstraction layers.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 09:59:06 UTC

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