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, 11 Apr 2008 07:40:17 +1000
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, google-gears-eng@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <182C803D-94DC-4557-B0C2-40AFF1FD1B28@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>

Good question; probably best to ask one of the MF guys (Alex CC'ed).

Alex - do you have user-configurable testing now?

I've also been thinking about working on an open source HTTP testing  
framework (not proxy-specific), but that's just an idea and a few bits  
of random Python at this point...



On 10/04/2008, at 10:44 PM, Charles Fry wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 21:41:52 GMT

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