W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:06:54 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB7DEA90-2D83-4ACF-A65B-7F17A1DD7C5A@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I've tested a fairly wide variety of proxies with co-advisor; the only  
one that passed the related set of tests was very recent builds of  
Squid (2.7DEVEL0). Everything else -- including Squid 2.6STABLE4 --  
failed (it would take some digging to figure out exactly where this  
happened, unless Henrik knows; regardless, I think it's safe to say  
that a very large proportion of Squid's installed base fails as well).

Cheers,


On 04/04/2008, at 6:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> interesting: <http://code.google.com/p/google-gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal 
> >.
>
> In particular:
>
> "Note that section 14.20 of HTTP/1.1 indicates that "an HTTP/1.1  
> proxy MUST return a 417 (Expectation Failed) status if it receives a  
> request with an expectation that it cannot meet". We expect that  
> fully compliant proxies ignore Expect pragmas which they don't  
> understand (as opposed to understand but cannot meet), but this  
> remains to be verified in the wild."
>
> So does anybody know that proxies do here?
>
> BR, Julian
>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 23:07:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT