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

Re: A new suggestion on 100 CONTINUE

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:25:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199706111725.NAA07761@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3495

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

JF> Would it be acceptable to say that the server can check to see if
JF> it has already received PUT or POST data from the client and if it
JF> has the server MAY choose not to send "100 CONTINUE"?  This would
JF> at least permit the server not to send "100 CONTINUE" when the
JF> POST data arrives in the same packet as some of the headers.

  This has pretty serious implementation problems; it may be that the
  POST has no body, and any data pending in TCP is actually another

  Most of the objections raised here to all this have been to the
  requirement that the 100 response be sent, not that the client wait
  for it before sending the body - note that sending the 100 response
  has been a requirement for some time.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 10:27:49 UTC

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