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

Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 12:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.970704121232.28454A-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3657

On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Jeffrey Mogul wrote:

> Koen writes, re "Upon receiving a request ...",
>    Add: `from an HTTP/1.1 client'.  A 1.0 proxy will not strip off this
>    header when relaying a request.
> and also
>     As the 100 mechanism is hop-to-hop, it looks like Expected must be a
>     hop-to-hop header, so it must be added to the list in section 13.5.1,
>     and the following text should be added to the header definition:

I have just reviewed RFC 2068 and find no indication that 100 (Continue)
is a hop-hop mechanism. A proxy is allowed to send 100 Continue but 
is not required to do so by my reading. All of the arguments I've read
for the existance of this mechanism seem to me to relate to the
origin server and the end-end application.

I would appreciate a reference to the working which establishes 100
(Continue) as hop-hop.


  Dave Morris
Received on Friday, 4 July 1997 12:28:08 UTC

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