fre 2008-04-04 klockan 00:01 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
I think it's clear that a proxy that sees Expect: foobar will have to
immediately fail with status 417 if it doesn't know what foobar means.
Yes, that's a MUST level requirement in 14.20 Expect.. third paragraph,
and further clarified
Greetings Apache Developers,
We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming
Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of
server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect
header check that handles Expect: 100-continue, but fails on any
other
Charles Fry wrote:
Greetings Apache Developers,
We have implemented an Apache module which needs to process incoming
Expect headers for non-100-expectations. The version of
server/protocol.c currently in the trunk has a hard-coded Expect
header check that handles Expect: 100-continue, but fails
Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with
unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical
knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There
does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status
codes (though I know nothing
Charles Fry wrote:
Well, I guess that partly depends on how deployed proxies deal with
unrecognized Expect headers. Do any of you have any practical
knowledge of how current proxies deal with new Expect headers? There
does at least seem to be a precedent with WebDAV sending 102 status
codes
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0043.html
(I'd propose to continue the conversation over there).
Done. Thanks for initiating the discussion.
The HTTP spec does specify that the hop-to-hop decision MUST be made
at a protocol level
