- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:08:01 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
WFM. On 04/11/2011, at 8:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-10-26 01:52, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> On 25/10/2011, at 3:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 2011-07-18 08:05, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>>> I think we're hitting diminishing returns here, and possibly approaching the angels dancing on the pins. >>>> >>>> If someone has a proposal for a text change that they think will represent consensus, great. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, I don't see any pushback on the proposed resolution, as it affects p1. >>>> ... >>> >>> So what is the proposed resolution? >> >> The original e-mail said: >> >>> 1xx responses are non-final; i.e., the underlying model is that for each request, there are 0 to many non-final responses, and exactly one final response. >>> >>> This should be made explicit at a high level; it's implied by the definition of 1xx, but never really spelled out anywhere. >> >> >> ... so it needs some text, probably somewhere in or around p1 2.1 "Client/Server Messaging". >> >> Do you want to take a stab at it, or would you like a textual proposal? >> ... > > Mark made a proposal in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/300#comment:6>. I rephrased it minimally, and the new paragraph would then read: > > Note that 1xx responses (Section 7.1 of [Part2]) are not final; > therefore, a server can send zero or more 1xx responses, followed by > exactly one final response (with any other status code). > > (see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/300/300.diff>). > > Feedback appreciated, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 01:10:54 UTC