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

Re: #327: Expect syntax

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:37:24 +0100
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20111217073724.GA21202@1wt.eu>
Hi Alex,

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:48:26PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 03:22 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2011-12-16 22:56, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2011 02:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, I did two more changes:
> >>>
> >>> - in the grammar, allow trailing semicolons; so that "100-continue;"
> >>> isn't invalid (we have the same in Prefer)
> >>
> >> Any specific reason to allow that trailing semicolon? Seems like it
> >> should not be allowed unless Expect is already commonly used that way.
> > 
> > a) there's no harm
> 
> I am sure some servers that can grok "100-continue" will fail to
> recognize "100-continue;" as equivalent and respond with 417. Granted,
> many of those servers are not compliant in other Expect-related ways,
> but I do not think "no harm" is a 100% valid assumption in this case.

Just checked, and I can confirm that haproxy only matches
"100-continue" when the field value is exactly 12 chars. And I'm sure
it's not the only one to match this exact value since rfc2616 did not
allow for anything past "100-continue".

Regards,
Willy
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 07:38:00 GMT

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