W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Minimum HTTP version (was: Accept-Ranges: the controversy that wouldn't die)

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199606061603.JAA02913@bert.amazon.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/827
Koen Holtman writes:
 > Shel Kaphan:
 > >
 > >In addition to knowing if there is a server somewhere in the chain that
 > >supports byte ranges, it would be useful to be able to tell what the
 > >minimum HTTP version is in a chain of servers.
 > The Via header allows, among other things, the detection of the
 > presence of 1.0 servers in the chain.
 > >--Shel
 > Koen.

It would, if it were there in earlier versions of the protocol.  In
1.0 all you get is mashed User-Agent headers and the occasional
Forwarded header, if you're lucky. It would be far more reliable to
make it mandatory for 1.1 servers to "report on their neighbors".

Here's a User-Agent header from today's logs:

Mozilla/2.02 (Win16; I)  via proxy gateway  CERN-HTTPD/3.0 libwww/2.17 Modified via PRD proxy gateway via Harvest Cache version 1.4pl2 via Harvest Cache version 1.4pl3

I guess you can "back out" the information by looking for "via" or
"forwarded" in the user-agent string, or looking for a "Forwarded"
header, and if either is present assume there's a 1.0 or earlier proxy in the
chain. That's fairly ugly and probably not very reliable though.

Received on Thursday, 6 June 1996 09:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC