- From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:16:37 -0500
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 22 July 2014 13:36, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What is the end-to-end semantics though? As far as the application is >> concerned, the request-response cycle has the same semantics whether >> or not 100-continue is exchanged under the hood. > > > The semantic that the client application is seeking is confirmation from the > origin server that it has inspected the headers and has consented for the > body to be sent. This is a new way of interpreting it, but it's probably not the original intent, and it's not supported by the text of the spec. If a server does not respond with 100, it doesn't mean the body is forbidden to be sent; the client can always send the body regardless of server response(s). > Having an intermediary fake that consent does not > implement the same semantic, rather it elides the semantic with an assumed > positive response. > >> Whether or not the >> server can process the request without knowing the body does not rely >> on the presence of 100-continue, and is not an interesting information >> that has to be revealed, except for the purpose of optimization. > > > Firstly even if 100 is only an optimisation, we have gone to great lengths > with h2 to features that provide good quality of service for browser > clients. So I do not think we can just remove something which has been long > implemented to address similar QoS concerns for non browser clients on the > basis that it is only an optimisation. Agreed. > > Besides, it is not purely an optimisation as it may be that on inspection of > the headers, the origin server determines that the request content needs to > be confidential and redirects the client to a secure port. I'm not saying > this is a good or common way of implementing security, just that is is a > use-case I have been asked about about when we did not support 100 > continues. > > regards > > > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 06:17:04 UTC