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: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 10:26:43 -0700
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9606061026.aa09347@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/831
> 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".

Please read the description of the Via header field.  It does that.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056
Received on Thursday, 6 June 1996 10:50:36 UTC

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