I don't think the spec itself is broken; it is just difficult to get the web as a whole to do it right, probably because it totally breaks request-response assumptions. :( -=R On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > On 2012-07-17 21:45, Osama Mazahir wrote: > >> As it is currently, 100-continue is problematic. The situation is tricky >> because the client is not forced to wait for the 100/417/4xx (i.e. client >> is allowed to timeout and send the entity body). Thus, the server does not >> have a deterministic way to now if the next byte after the double CRLF is >> the first byte of the next request or the first byte of the entity body (of >> the initial request). This results in connections getting closed in >> various edge/error cases. >> >> 100-continue is almost there but if we wanted to use it in a robust >> manner in HTTP2 then I think we would have to revisit its specification. >> ... >> > > Well, we are revising RFC 2616, and if something is broken here we should > consider to fix it. Or, minimally, document the problem. > > If I understand correctly, this will happen if the client sends "Expect: > 100-continue", the server is slow to return an error status, and the client > decides to give up waiting for the 100 status, and continues? > > Best regards, Julian > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 20:58:29 UTC