- From: Howard Melman <howard@silverstream.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:11:58 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
On Thursday Nov 8, 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Should a Connection: close header be allowed on a > > 100-continue response? If so what does it mean? Does it > > Does it matter? Does there exist a realistic situation in > which a server would send Connection: close and require a > consistent, interoperable behavior on the part of the > client? > > No? Then it doesn't need to be specified. I came at it from another spot. While trying to work around an IE bug: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q305/2/17.ASP we found our server implementation could do better at sending "Connection: close" when it knew it was going to close the connection and not just relying on clients to cope well with dropped connections. In trying to get it right, we weren't sure if we should send it on 100-continue responses. Someone here read: HTTP/1.1 applications that do not support persistent connections MUST include the "close" connection option in every message. and thought we needed to send it (a 100-continue response is a message so we MUST include it). It didn't make sense to me, thought it could break things, and wanted to check what was right. We won't send close on 100-continue responses. Howard
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 00:13:04 UTC