- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:37:14 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 31/05/2013, at 4:13 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: >> OK. How do other folks feel about this? I think the proposal is to change: >> >>> If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or >>> lower, it must not forward the request, and it must respond with a 417 >>> (Expectation Failed) status code. >> >> to: >> >> """ >> If the proxy knows that the version of the next-hop server is HTTP/1.0 or >> lower, it MAY either respond with a 417 (Expectation Failed) without >> forwarding the request, or with a 100 (Continue) status code while forwarding >> it. >> """ > > I think it's better, but still I don't see the issue which could be caused > by a proxy returning 100 when the server is known to be 1.1. I tend to > consider that expect:100 is more related to the connection than to the > whole path, eventhough it's still not hop-by-hop in its definition. After > all, the first goal is to avoid uselessly sending huge amounts of data. > And the fact that we define the behaviour of each element in the chain > for this expect and 100 tends to confirm this hop-by-hop behaviour. So, you'd like to relax this requirement for all connections, not just when the proxy knows that the forward hop is 1.0? I think that's sensible, but it's a bigger change; what do others think? >> Note that this is applying to proxies, NOT gateways (like haproxy), which >> AFAICT don't have any requirements applying to them. Hmm. > > I understand, but some proxies will analyse posted contents to detect > malware activity or information leaks etc... and will have to send 100 > themselves anyway. Yep. >> I'd also really like to see us define what "final status code" means; is it >> just 417? Any 4xx or 5xx status? Any non-1xx status? > > I think that since only 1xx are non-final, final are all other ones, but > you're right, we should define this term. Anyone disagree with "final" being any non-1xx status code? Note that this would allow an origin to respond with 200 OK to a request with an expectation in it (when the entire request hasn't yet been received). I think that's OK, just wanted to point it out. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 01:37:44 UTC