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

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:41:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4E1411A1.1070607@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-07-06 07:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:43:23AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2011-07-06 02:19, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> ...
>>> What do people think about adding text to the "Considerations for New
>>> Headers" section stating that headers may not be available on 1xx
>>> responses in some implementations?
>>> ...
>> Do you have an example of an implementation that *does* expose 1xx
>> responses, but not the headers on them?
> Julian, I think I understand what Mark means. It's not much a matter
> of exposing either the header or the status, but to see how the header
> will be used. For instance, if you send a "connection: close" on a 100
> response, it will be ignored by most implementations. If you send
> "Transfer-encoding: chunked", it should (hopefully) be ignored. If some
> implementations were to consider such headers, they could adopt a wrong
> behaviour.
> ...

Still not convinced. Maybe it's worth noting that 100 is really a very 
special kind of 1xx, and coming to conclusions about what other 1xx 
codes can do based on what happens with 100 is not going to work?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 07:42:04 UTC

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