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

Re: #300: Define non-final responses

From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAbTgTtJrXBh+X405oP70Xz53YHf5VeB8yd7D1c4Y5zmw0R5zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 07:57:19PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 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.
>
> OK I found the point you mention :
>
>  "the first action after changing the protocol MUST be a response to
>   the initial HTTP request containing the Upgrade header field."

I don't see anything in 2616 (or STD 3) that would require this
response in the new protocol to have a nonzero length, though,
regardless of the HTTP method in the request.

-Brian
Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 05:57:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:45 GMT