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

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:55:00 +0000
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
cc: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3024.1309935300@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <20110705230105.GC18576@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:40:19PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>In fact we should be more precise on this in order to allow future
>websocket implementations to save one round trip. We should state
>that whatever is sent after the request will be handled by the
>next protocol, whether it's the upgraded protocol (in case of success)
>or HTTP (in case of upgrade failure).

1. That is not necessary to write, it follows directly from how
   TCP works underneath.

2. It unnecessarily constrains the design of the protocols we could
   upgrade to:  Relying on HTTP to choke on the wrong protocol is
   bad, but permissible behaviour.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 06:55:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:44 GMT