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

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

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:29:09 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F4850332A702@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Either way it seems clear that we need to clean up on the language in
the spec so proxy implementers are clear on the need to pass 1xx
responses through to the client.
		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Roy T. Fielding [SMTP:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Friday, July 11, 1997 5:03 PM
> To:	Koen Holtman
> Cc:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Subject:	Re: Is 100-Continue hop-by-hop? 
> 
> >But I guess that what he actually had in mind was 
> >
> >  <copy request> <100 response about progress=50%> <100 response
> about
> >  progress=100%> <200 OK response to copy request>
> >
> >And this latter case would indeed work through a multiplexing proxy
> >(though the code would have to be 101 or something, with semantics
> >slightly different from 100). 
> 
> 101 is already being used, but yes it would definitely have to be
> a new 1xx code.  Extensibility is meant to be used.
> 
> .....Roy
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 16:41:18 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:48 EDT