- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:59:39 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <jio627t392ai6p0nod1702u88ejhvlgvuj@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>, Bjoer n Hoehrmann writes: >* Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>There is absolutely no support in the text for the notion that >>the server should send a 200 reponse between the 101 and the >>switch of protocol. > >My impression is that the issue is whether you can have a HTTP >request that goes unanswered and then have meaningful exchanges >on the same connection. Is HTTP a "request-response" protocol, or >a "request and then either response or protocol switch" protocol? The 101 _is_ your HTTP reponse, but it is not the reponse to your request. The reason for this little dance is to avoid an extra round-trip: Instead of: > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade: Wiz-Bang < HTTP/1.1 101 Protocol switch < Upgrade: Wiz-Bang > [wiz-bang GET /] < [wiz-bang index.html] We can: > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade: Wiz-Bang < HTTP/1.1 101 Protocol switch < Upgrade: Wiz-Bang < [wiz-bang OK index.html] However, if the protocol is not for delivering web-objects it may instead look like: > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade: TN3270 < HTTP/1.1 101 Protocol switch < Upgrade: TN3270 < [TELNET option negotiation] -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 17 July 2011 23:00:14 UTC