- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:37:15 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@rackspace.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 06:37:43 UTC
On Jul 18, 2012 2:35 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >[snip] >> 3. How are Informational 1xx Status Codes handled? The current SPDY draft does not appear to support "provisional responses". > > Thank you for the reference to the thread. After reading through it one thing became obvious: while it would likely not be difficult to provide support for a 100-continue like mechanism within spdy, the protocols current design would essentially require a suboptimal hack in order to retain existing http/1.1 semantics and preserve spdy-to-http1.1 pass through or would require that we design a new similar mechanism, optimized for spdy that changes an aspect of http/1.1 semantics. As Mark has pointed out recently, however, our job here currently is to only define a new transport for http and not to change existing http semantics. So i am at a bit of a loss as to what the charter will let us do in this case. Mark... any guidance?
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 06:37:43 UTC