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

Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 21:49:47 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707041949.VAA01194@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3660
David W. Morris:
>I have just reviewed RFC 2068 and find no indication that 100 (Continue)
>is a hop-hop mechanism.

Maybe we mean something different when we say hop-by-hop.  

What I meant is that the message transmission requirements and binary
exponentiual backoff happen between *client* and *server* (these are
the words the spec uses everywhere), not between *user agent* and
*origin server*.

In a chain of clients relaying a request, it would be up to each
individual client to decide whether to wait for a 100.

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

It is the use of the words `client' and `server', rather than `user
agent' and `origin server' in the corresponsing sections like 8.2 and 

>  Dave Morris

Received on Friday, 4 July 1997 12:53:40 UTC

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