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

Re: #300: Define non-final responses

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 19:57:19 -0700
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DCD422F5-56FB-4985-BC8E-4E2C3B8BC6B6@gbiv.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
On Jul 17, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Roy, this is not how I read RFC2616 :

Please read the section on Upgrade.

> The term "immediately after the empty line which terminates the 101 response"
> is pretty clear to me : HTTP ends after the 101 response, and immediately
> after it, it is the next protocol. So there clearly is not any other HTTP
> response after 101. It may not be how you designed it 12 years ago, but it
> is how it's documented and how people have been using it. WebSocket is even
> relying on this in the handshake.

If WebSocket relies on broken behavior, in spite of the many times that I have
posted the correct handshake, then someone should fix WebSockets.

Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 02:57:48 UTC

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