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

Re: Is 100-Continue hop-by-hop?

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:16:02 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707102016.WAA11405@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, dwm@xpasc.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3727
Yaron Goland:
>On 100 being hop by hop, I would also throw in the following scenario
>from DAV land:
>A client executes a COPY on a container with a large number of members.
>The user agent will want to be able to provide update information on how
>the copy is progressing rather than just sitting there for a few minutes
>while the procedure is underway. 100 continue responses are perfect for
>this scenario.

Sorry, but 100 continue is _not_ perfect for this scenario.  There is
a message by Jeff in the archives which explains why.  Basically, a
proxy which is multiplexing requests from multiple clients over a
single upstream connection would have no idea to which client a 100
continue would have to be forwarded.

1.1 does not offer an end-to-end event notification service, nor can
100 be easily `fixed' to produce such a service.  Adding such a
service is out of scope for this WG I think.  IF DAV needs something,
I suggest that you either document Netscape server push and use that,
or spec a mechanism in which the client makes occasional status

>		Yaron

Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 13:19:04 UTC

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