Opened 10 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#211 closed protocol defect (fixed)

Signal provisional responses (atomic Block1) in the response code

Reported by: cabo@… Owned by: draft-ietf-core-block@…
Priority: major Milestone: post-WGLC-1
Component: block Version: block-08
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Esko Dijk and Klaus Hartke point out that the 2.01/2.04 responses that are foreseen for provisional responses to atomic blockwise request body transfers (Block1) are misleading.

Section 2.1 currently proposes signaling the fact that a response to a single block is only provisional and the whole body will be reassembled before the method is actually performed, using the M bit in the response; the response code is more or less invalidated as provisional when the M bit is set in a Block1 option in the response.

Klaus Hartke proposes to introduce a provisional response code similar to 100 continue in HTTP, which is defined as follows:

  • 100 Continue

The client SHOULD continue with its request. This
interim response is used to inform the client that the
initial part of the request has been received and has
not yet been rejected by the server. The client
SHOULD continue by sending the remainder of the
request or, if the request has already been completed,
ignore this response. The server MUST send a final
response after the request has been completed.

(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-19#section-7.1.1)

If we pick this up:

1) Section 5.9 of CoAP-09 currently only defines Success (2.xx), Client Error (4.xx), and Server Error (5.xx); the provisional response code could be grouped under Success (2.xx) or start a new class (1.xx?).

2) Once this code is defined, the M bit in the Block1 response option may or may not continue to be used in the way block-08 does.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by hartke@…

  • Milestone set to post-WGLC-1
  • Version set to block-08

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by cabo@…

Fixed in -13 by introducing "2.31 Continue".
Question 2 has been solved by keeping the M bit in its previous role, it is therefore now a redundant expression of 2.31.

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by cabo@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.