- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:16:02 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, dwm@xpasc.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Yaron Goland: > >On 100 being hop by hop, I would also throw in the following scenario >from DAV land: >A client executes a COPY on a container with a large number of members. >The user agent will want to be able to provide update information on how >the copy is progressing rather than just sitting there for a few minutes >while the procedure is underway. 100 continue responses are perfect for >this scenario. Sorry, but 100 continue is _not_ perfect for this scenario. There is a message by Jeff in the archives which explains why. Basically, a proxy which is multiplexing requests from multiple clients over a single upstream connection would have no idea to which client a 100 continue would have to be forwarded. 1.1 does not offer an end-to-end event notification service, nor can 100 be easily `fixed' to produce such a service. Adding such a service is out of scope for this WG I think. IF DAV needs something, I suggest that you either document Netscape server push and use that, or spec a mechanism in which the client makes occasional status requests. > Yaron Koen.
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 13:19:04 UTC