Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control

Joel N. Weber II (devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Fri, 4 Jul 1997 16:35:00 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
Previous message: Koen Holtman: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
In reply to: David W. Morris: "Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control"
Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Is 100-Continue hop-by-hop?"

   Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
   From: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>
   Reply-To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>

   We use the term server when we don't choose to differentiate between
   proxies and servers.

I understand what you're saying, but isn't that a circular reference?

Next message: David W. Morris: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
Previous message: Koen Holtman: "Re: ISSUE PROXY-AUTHORIZATION: Proposal wording"
In reply to: David W. Morris: "Re: Proposal: 100-Continue optional under Client control"
Next in thread: Jeffrey Mogul: "Is 100-Continue hop-by-hop?"