2014-06-13 19:16 GMT+04:00 Konstantin Preißer <kpreis...@apache.org>: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ma...@apache.org [mailto:ma...@apache.org] >> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 1:27 PM > > >> Author: markt >> Date: Fri Jun 13 11:26:36 2014 >> New Revision: 1602381 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1602381 >> Log: >> As per RFC2616, an unknown expect header should result in a 417 response. > > > JFYI, according to Mark Notthingham from IETF [1], RFC2616 should not be used > any more: > "Don’t use RFC2616. Delete it from your hard drives, bookmarks, and burn (or > responsibly recycle) any copies that are printed out." > > New RFCs have been released that clarify HTTP/1.1: > > RFC7230 - HTTP/1.1: Message Syntax and Routing > RFC7231 - HTTP/1.1: Semantics and Content > RFC7232 - HTTP/1.1: Conditional Requests > RFC7233 - HTTP/1.1: Range Requests > RFC7234 - HTTP/1.1: Caching > RFC7235 - HTTP/1.1: Authentication > > > Regards, > Konstantin Preißer > > > [1] https://www.mnot.net/blog/2014/06/07/rfc2616_is_dead >
Thank you for head-ups. In this particular case the new reference is RFC7231 Section. The differences that I note are that a) Only "100-continue" is allowed as the value. The syntax is no more extensible. b) "MUST respond with a 417" was replaced with "MAY respond with a 417". So the code is OK. [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.1.1 Best regards, Konstantin Kolinko --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
