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 14:39:28 -0500 (CDT)
To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970611141921.22254A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3513
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Scott Lawrence wrote:

> >>>>> "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
>   request.

I guess a POST with no body is possible and would be used to indicate a
non-idempotent request.

If the POST has no body the headers must contain a "Content-length: 0"
line, so the server knows (i.e. this is not an implementation problem for
my suggestion).

This does illustrate my point though.  Isn't it a little bit brain dead
to *require* a "100 CONTINUE" for a POST with no body?

Incidentally, when a client waits for and gets a "100 CONTINUE" after
sending the headers of a bodyless POST, what does it send?

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 1997 12:46:55 UTC

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