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

In message <>, Mark Nottingham wri

>Roy's point below hasn't been discussed in the context of HTTP/2 
>before IIRC; he's right in that the nature of expect/continue in 
>HTTP/1 is not just hop-by-hop. 

The problem is that you don't know what it is, and therefore it
is not particular attractive to use it outside controlled

100-Continue would become much more attractive to use if HTTP/2
made it end to end.

Obviously, we can not guarantee e2e if there are HTTP/1 nodes
involved, but I still think it would be an improvement to make
it e2e on pure H2 paths.

My preferred solution is a HEADERS bit which says "I'll send
the entity-body when you tell me to."

In order to not complicate things with new semantics we need to
explain, I would make the "tell me to" part a WINDOW_UPDATE from
the receiver on that stream.

If we go into the "send HEADERS with 100 :status" territory it will
make the protocol semantics and description much more complicated.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 21:14:16 UTC