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

Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:59:10 -0400
Message-Id: <EAFC2172-B96D-4910-8A39-D609D3735314@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Royís point below hasnít been discussed in the context of HTTP/2 before IIRC; heís right in that the nature of expect/continue in HTTP/1 is not just hop-by-hop. 

Given that, it sounds like we need to address this issue (e.g., using Julianís patch), and also adjust our existing text about 100-continue (and perhaps even about 101).

Thatís not to say that the WG canít decide to deprecate further 1xx status codes in a separate document; just that HTTP/2 needs to carry this HTTP semantic (as per our charter).

Iím going to mark this as editor-ready soon. Any further comments? 


On 18 Jul 2014, at 1:19 pm, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> If we don't support 100 then we can't ask the endpoint (not just the
> next hop) to verify that it will process the data in a large upload before
> sending that large upload.  I don't care if browsers don't use this feature.
> It is commonly used in authoring environments for customers with large
> data nodes (GIS and DAM).  h2 framing can only do the same if there are
> no intermediaries.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 18:59:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:20 UTC