Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Fri, 4 Jul 1997 21:49:47 +0200 (MET DST)
David W. Morris:
>
[...]
>
>I have just reviewed RFC 2068 and find no indication that 100 (Continue)
>is a hop-hop mechanism.
Maybe we mean something different when we say hop-by-hop.
What I meant is that the message transmission requirements and binary
exponentiual backoff happen between *client* and *server* (these are
the words the spec uses everywhere), not between *user agent* and
*origin server*.
In a chain of clients relaying a request, it would be up to each
individual client to decide whether to wait for a 100.
[....]
>I would appreciate a reference to the working which establishes 100
>(Continue) as hop-hop.
It is the use of the words `client' and `server', rather than `user
agent' and `origin server' in the corresponsing sections like 8.2 and
10.1.1.
> Dave Morris
Koen.