- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:09:16 -0700
- To: 'Larry Masinter' <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'doug_crow@cacheflow.com'" <doug_crow@cacheflow.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
I believe we should leave this issue open. I feel that Roy's attitude is best, "If you don't understand it, then dump it." If others need to solve this problem they are free to add headers, new 1xx messages with bodies, etc. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 1997 11:21 PM > To: Yaron Goland > Cc: 'doug_crow@cacheflow.com'; http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com > Subject: Re: 1xx Clarification > > > Your argument has the underlying assumption that the notification > > information was "meant" for a particular user. There are many > scenarios, > > such as the server saying things like "I am going down" or "My > resources > > are getting limited" where the asynchronous notification is meant > for > > whomever has the connection open. > > > > Well, so 1xx messages sent between a request and a response > apply to that response, but 1xx messages sent without > an outstanding request only apply "generically" to whomever > has the connection open. Given the possibility of pipelining, > it might be hard to tell which case you have. If I pipeline > two requests and I get a 1xx after the first response and > before the second, was it generated AFTER the second request > was received or before? > > > -- > http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 00:11:17 UTC