W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p2: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:28:38 +1200
Message-ID: <5177DE06.5000305@treenet.co.nz>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/04/2013 7:46 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
>> On 24/04/2013 4:39 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
>>>>
>>>> On 24/04/2013, at 12:41 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  I think we can give better advice than that. If a server 
>>>>>>> responds with a final status code instead of 100 (Continue)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  1. The response must be the last response on the connection. 
>>>>>>> The response should contain "Connection: close" header. After 
>>>>>>> the response is written, the server must initiate a lingering 
>>>>>>> close of the connection (p1#6.6).
>>>>>>  That seems too restrictive; as long as the server reads the rest 
>>>>>> of the request properly (discarding it), it should be able to 
>>>>>> recover and reuse the connection.
>>>>>
>>>>>  The problem comes with intermediaries. How are they to know the 
>>>>> bytes following were the original advertised payload or not? the 
>>>>> status from server has no guarantee of arriving after the client 
>>>>> payload starts arriving.
>>>>>  The only way to guarantee safety on the connection is to close it 
>>>>> or always send payload.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm really struggling to see what benefit can be derived by a client 
>>> in knowing whether a server supports 100 continue or not. So to me 
>>> Expects: 100-continue is a complete waste of space. I've never seen 
>>> one so I guess implementors by and large agree.
>>
>> I guess you have never tried uploading a video to the YouTube through 
>> an old intermediary which requires authentication. At best (Basic) it 
>> doubles the upload time and can cause the whole transaction to abort 
>> with a timeout. At worst (NTLM) it can do the same while consuming up 
>> to 3x the total size of the uncompressed video in bandwidth. This 
>> exact use-case is why we pushed HTTP/1.1 experiments into Squid-2.7.
> similar issue with webmail uploading attachments.  that's why I wrote 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-decroy-http-progress-00.txt
>
> I removed the discussion about flow-control after the aforementioned 
> discussion about using chunked transfers for requests.
>
> But I don't see how 100 continue makes any difference in this case.  
> The client needs to either
>
> a) close and retry.  This won't work for any connection-oriented auth 
> mechanism.

On the contrary the connection can safely be closed after the first 
request/response and the initial challenge with any mechanism, even 
connection-oriented ones. The credentials state does not exist until the 
followup client request with Authorization: header attached. That is the 
point where closure is a probem for connection-oriented auth, BUT also 
by that point Expect has already taken place and capability is known to 
be available or not.

Squid administrators have been using exactly this challenge+close method 
for some years now to avoid MSIE bugs in NTLM. So we have evidence of 
success outside of Expect.

Amos
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2013 13:29:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC