- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:43:33 +1000
- To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Cc: Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17/09/2008, at 10:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> the recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g. >>> Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or implement >>> and MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases. >> (as 2616 does). >> So, in theory you can PUT with Content-Range and know that if the >> server doesn't support resumable requests, you'll get a 501. In >> practice, of course, may be a completely different kettle of fish. > > The reason this isn't a solution is that the server must swallow the > body > of the request or lose keepalive and pipeline optimizations; 501 > isn't an > intermediate response. > > I wonder if a new 100-class code, the inverse of CONTINUE, wouldn't > be of > value in HTTP/next to designate that a the request body can be > omitted since > a final determination is available. The client would still have to > send a > body (since there is no ack) but using a chunked send, a chunk of 0 > bytes > to finalize an empty request body would be sufficient. > Sounds nice, but I don't know that the introduced complexity is worth keeping connections open in a fail case; implementers already seem to have enough trouble with continue... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 00:44:17 UTC