Re: Expect: + Upgrade: = ... from Martin Thomson on 2013-09-05 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:14:11 -0700
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWc3gb7kWg+Pz=qWSa-9vsbW_AOkGv1qZGBZPFe3c4c-g@mail.gmail.com>

On 5 September 2013 14:07, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, I lol'd at that, but I'm willing to admit that the combination is silly,
> and that implementations that my proxies are likely to encounter will get it
> right in the vast majority of the time.

I think that it's easy to say: 'do it this way, or don't do it at
all'.  It might be easier to say 'don't do it at all', but I'm not
seeing a strong need to do so.

Note that any implementation that supports upgrade will have to deal
with the possibility that the request also has expect: 100-continue.
The real onus is on the proxy or server to get it right, (or to say
gtfo).

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 21:14:38 UTC