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

Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:44:23 -0400
Message-ID: <b549193f0804100544t71556146y489127c8d6ce0386@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com

Would co-advisor be the right/best way to test what existing proxies
do when they receive an unsolicited 103 response?

Charles

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> See:
>   http://coad.measurement-factory.com/
>
>  A representative test is sending a request with
>   Expect: 100-continueing
>
>  I don't see how you can read it both ways; e.g.,
>
>
> >  This header field is defined with extensible syntax to allow for
> >   future extensions. If a server receives a request containing an
> >   Expect field that includes an expectation-extension that it does not
> >   support, it MUST respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) status.
> >
>
>  [...]
>
>
> >   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.
> >
>
>
>  Cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 04/04/2008, at 10:47 AM, Charles Fry wrote:
>
> > Would you mind pointing us to the "related set of tests" which you refer
> to?
> >
> > Also, could you specify just what you imply by passing and failing
> > these tests? Specifically, how is correct proxy behavior defined for
> > unknown Expect requests (I could see arguments either way based on my
> > reading of the HTTP protocol spec)?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Charles
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  --
>
>
>  Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 12:45:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT