Re: [PREVIEW] 1xx response forwarding

See RFC on use and meaning of HTTP version numbers.

fre 2010-08-20 klockan 08:58 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov:
> On 08/20/2010 08:36 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>
> > Some aspects of http is hop-by-hop not end-to-end. Processing of Expect is one such thing. Transfer encoding and message delimiting another.
>
> Sure. We can consider the "next hop == origin server" case to avoid
> distractions. I am only wondering whether http://host/path1 and
> http://host/path2 responses are guaranteed to have the same protocol
> version. I do not think HTTP gives such guarantees, and yet its
> requirements imply that remembering versions using host names should work.
>
> Alex.
>
> > We just look at what we know about the nexthop we select. Actual URI is pretty irrelevant unless used as selecting factor for selecting the nexthop.
> >
> > Yes proper Expect processing needs to be done in our client (server side in our terminology).
> >
> > regards
> > Henrik
> > ----- Ursprungsmeddelande -----
> >> On 08/20/2010 06:30 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> >>> tor 2010-08-19 klockan 10:41 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov:
> >>>
> >>>> The patch removes the ignore_expect_100 feature because we now
> >>>> forward 100 Continue messages. Is everybody OK with that removal?
> >>>
> >>> May need to keep/resurrect it when adding next hop version check as
> >>> required by Expect..
> >>
> >> Good point. The next hop version check is better done on the server side
> >> though, right? We may not yet know the next hop when accepting the
> >> request.
> >>
> >> BTW, most things in HTTP are URI- and not hostname-based. I wonder what
> >> "server" or "next hop" means when checking for supported versions. Do we
> >> look just at the host name:port and hope that it reflects the version of
> >> everything running there?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Alex.
Received on Fri Aug 20 2010 - 15:26:23 MDT