- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 20:49:50 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Willy, Again -- this is about Warn-codes, NOT status codes. Cheers, On 05/11/2011, at 6:28 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > My feeling is that if we're certain that we won't break any client by sending > interim 110 responses before the final response, SHOULD is the right wording to > use to promote the new feature. However if we fear that some clients don't > expect an 1xx interim response, then maybe we should use a MAY. I think the > risk is not null, because till now, the only really visible 1xx is 100 which > is exposed only when the client asks for it. I would not be surprised that a > number of crappy package update tools or AV update daemons do not implement > interim responses at all. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 09:50:20 UTC