- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:37:24 +0100
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alex, On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:48:26PM -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 12/16/2011 03:22 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > On 2011-12-16 22:56, Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> On 12/16/2011 02:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> > >>> OK, I did two more changes: > >>> > >>> - in the grammar, allow trailing semicolons; so that "100-continue;" > >>> isn't invalid (we have the same in Prefer) > >> > >> Any specific reason to allow that trailing semicolon? Seems like it > >> should not be allowed unless Expect is already commonly used that way. > > > > a) there's no harm > > I am sure some servers that can grok "100-continue" will fail to > recognize "100-continue;" as equivalent and respond with 417. Granted, > many of those servers are not compliant in other Expect-related ways, > but I do not think "no harm" is a 100% valid assumption in this case. Just checked, and I can confirm that haproxy only matches "100-continue" when the field value is exactly 12 chars. And I'm sure it's not the only one to match this exact value since rfc2616 did not allow for anything past "100-continue". Regards, Willy
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 07:38:00 UTC