- From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 21:36:27 +0900
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2016-11-12 9:00 GMT+09:00 Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>: > On 11/11/2016 12:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Q: maybe we should create a Wiki page, summarizing implementation status >> and bug reports? > > FWIW, based on the results I had access to, most of the HTTP proxies > using our HTTP compliance test suite mishandled 1xx messages one way or > the other. Even today, after all the tests and bug fixes, there is an > outstanding Squid bug where an unfortunate timing of 1xx and other > events lead to a crash. 1xx is evidently tricky to get right. > > This data point is not meant to support or combat the "let the bad > implementations surface/suffer" argument. I am just reporting that many, > possibly most proxies mishandle 1xx messages. Thank you for the info. I do not have a strong preference on whether if we should try to rescue the broken implementations, but to me your report is interesting in the fact that it shows the bounds of using header-based negotiation to work-around such implementations. HTTP headers are end-to-end by default. Therefore a request header for negotiating the use of 103 would go through an intermediary incapable of handling 1xx correctly. We might consider designating the header used for negotiation as a hop-by-hop header, but I'd be scared of using a new token to the connection header (for interoperability issues). In other words, using header-based negotiation for Early Hints only limitedly improves interoperability. PS. sorry if my response resumes the combat. > > HTH, > > Alex. > > -- Kazuho Oku
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2016 12:37:02 UTC