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

On 22 July 2014 16:16, Zhong Yu <> wrote:

> > 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).

Consent to send != permission to send.

Clients can always just send the body, but 100 continues allows them the
ask the application on the server if it is OK to send the body.      The
important part of this is that the question is asked of the application and
not of the transport.  It is not asking "can I send the body?",  it is
asking "should I send the body?".   The key difference here is that the
first question can be answered by a proxy, while the second question is
fundamentally an end to end question.


Greg Wilkins <> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 22:39:23 UTC