W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:08 -0700
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CAE9FF05-4339-42E4-BC21-9CC0A63CF58C@gbiv.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <20110705051401.GB12909@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>> In fact, 101 is a final status while 100 is an intermediate one.
> That has always bugged, me: I think 101 should have been a 2xx or 3xx
> response.
> Maybe simply acknowleding rather than generalizing from this mistake
> is the best idea ?

Oh, for crying out loud.

101 is an interim response.  The first response in the new protocol
after an Upgrade is the response to the first request.  If I send an
Upgrade to waka on an HTTP GET request, the waka server will respond
with 101 in HTTP and then the equivalent of a 200 response in waka.
There is no second request.  That's the whole point in including a
zero-latency bootstrap upgrade within HTTP.

Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 18:37:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC