W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:58:55 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-id: <438B6528-EF1C-44DF-B5EB-180E6CF4B774@apple.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

I agree this is a duplicate and think the current wording in the spec about the Expect header and 1xx status codes is sufficient to explain how gateways must behave.

The primary reasons for using "Expect: 100-continue" for HTTP/1.1 are addressed by HTTP/2's framing and multiplexing - a Client can safely send a request and have that stream terminated early without the loss of a connection, using the same logic for POSTs to avoid sending sensitive info before authentication/upgrade (send request headers and wait a second or two for a response before continuing).

Trailers (mentioned in the linked issue) are a separate issue and are required for HTTP Digest authentication with message integrity checking, among other things.  You can't satisfy that requirement with framing and multiplexing.

On Jun 27, 2014, at 3:56 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/535>
> This seems like a re-opening of <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/264>. We discussed it a fair amount in the Seattle interim, and there was pretty strong support in the room for getting rid of 1xx status, especially since they're poorly supported in implementations, almost non-existant in APIs, and often don't survive hop-to-hop. 
> Julian, anything to add? I'm inclined to close this as a duplicate unless there's significant new information...
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 16:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC