W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:07:37 +0200
Message-ID: <46B1C909.2020000@gmx.de>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Stefan Eissing wrote:
>> This has as deployment problem: "Expect" is hop-by-hop, so it won't 
>> work with intermediates that do not now about it.
> 
> Objection, your honor! 2616, section 14.20:
> 
> "The Expect mechanism is hop-by-hop: that is, an HTTP/1.1 proxy MUST 
> return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a request with 
> an expectation that it cannot meet. However, the Expect request-header 
> itself is end-to-end; it MUST be forwarded if the request is forwarded."
> 
> So, it MUST reach the origin server, since proxies are unlikely to 
> answer a PATCH from cache.
 > ...

No, a proxy will have to 417 it if it doesn't know about it.

I guess if this wouldn't be the case, "Expect" would indeed be used in 
practice (in addition to 100-continue which HTTP/1.1 components MUST 
understand).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 12:07:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT