- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:13:53 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <EAFC2172-B96D-4910-8A39-D609D3735314@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: >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 environments. 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