- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:03:40 +1200
- To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:59:39 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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] > Or we can do this safely: > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade: Wiz-Bang > Content-Length: NNN > Connection: keep-alive > > [wiz-bang GET /] < HTTP/1.1 101 Protocol switch < Upgrade: Wiz-Bang < Connection: keep-alive < < [wiz-bang index.html] or we can even do this safely: > GET / HTTP/1.1 > Upgrade: Wiz-Bang > Content-Length: NNN > Connection: keep-alive > > [wiz-bang GET /] < HTTP/1.1 400 Oops. > Content-Length: 0 < Connection: keep-alive < > GET /next HTTP/1.1 Now, tell me how that 101 is not final? AYJ
Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 00:13:01 UTC