- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 14:40:20 -0800
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> A good point. But even if the HTTP protocol allows the use of an
> optimistic two-phase scheme (as I am suggesting), this does not mean
> that it would be required (since the optimistic scheme includes the
> pessimistic scheme as a backstop). In other words, a user that was
> being charged by the packet could choose to employ the pessimistic
> scheme, on its own initiative.
If this would still require the 100 Continue response be sent upon receipt
of the initial headers (which is what the application desiring a pessimistic
scheme would be looking for anyway), it sounds good to me. It is okay if
the pessimistic scheme only works "well" for HTTP/1.1 servers.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 14:56:26 UTC