W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p2: Expect: 100-continue and "final" status codes

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:50:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbez0Rt3U_1mg2FDqS+XKM8VwhnCh=JmTJ-8aChprD8YVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
For 1.x, I would say just leave this alone as is. I doubt there's
anything we can do that'll bring the non-conforming implementations
into line and it's not a critical enough of an issue to deserve
pushing on too much.

For 2.x, We ought to update the definition of Expect so that, for any
request method, an 100-Continue expectation MUST result in either a
RST_STREAM (if unsatisfied) or a 100 (Continue) as you suggest.

That said, I would also prefer that we discourage any further
definition of new expectations that dictate specific status response
codes from the server. The server ought to be free to return any
status it determines to be appropriate, and we now have the Prefer
header for allowing the client to communicate it's preferences while
still leaving the decision in the servers hands.

- James

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> p2 explains the semantics of 100-continue: "If the origin server responds with a final status code, it must not have performed the request method and may either close the connection or continue to read and discard the rest of the request."
> In my (admittedly quick) testing, pretty much nobody does this, at least by default; i.e., if I send a GET to a server with Expect: 100-continue, it's going to give me a 200 or 30x, not a 417. Sure, they might send 417 for a request with a body, but as written pretty much no one is conformant.
> One thing we could do would be to only place requirements upon proxies and servers when Expect: 100-continue is on a request with a body.
> Stepping back, though, I have to wonder if it's reasonable to only allow 100 (Continue) or, effectively, an error (since the request can't be "applied") in the presence of Expect: 100-continue. I've seen many implementations that purposefully ignore Expect: 100-continue and send back 200 (OK) responses to avoid the interop problems that expect/continue brings.
> OTOH if we do maintain the notion that a final response to an Expect: 100-continue request needs to NOT be applied on the server, we should use more specific terminology (i.e., say that it needs to be a 4xx or 5xx response status, not just a "final response.").
> Thoughts?
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 15:51:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC