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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:06:13 +0200
Message-ID: <53CE3795.5090805@gmx.de>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, 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 2014-07-22 08:16, Zhong Yu wrote:
> 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).
> ....

Instead of sending the 100, the server can immediately send a 4xx error 
code.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:06:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC