Re: p2: Expectation extensions

How about the spec explicitly allows a server to ignore any expectation
(including 100-continue), since that is the reality anyway?

Zhong Yu


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >p2 5.1.1 requires that an unrecognised expectation be replied to with a
> 417 Expectation Failed.
> >
> >In my testing, it's fairly common for servers to ignore an unregistered
> expectation (e.g., "foo").
> >
> >Given how many problems we already have with Expect, should we consider
> >disallowing further extensions here, and removing this requirement?
>
> I would like to see a proper rewrite of the specification text here. In
> general, I would disagree with changes as you propose; for instance, re-
> moving the requirement entirely would seem to make it difficult to un-
> derstand what the original idea behind `Expect` was, and it would seem
> that pointing out interoperability problems with respect to `Expect` is
> sufficient to discourage extensions; why should we forbid future experi-
> ments that depend on `Expect` beyond that?
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
>