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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:51:12 -0800
Message-Id: <9612201451.ZM5285@thornhill.arc.nasa.gov>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I agree that we need to resolve this, but I think that we need to think
about the proxy/cache issue as well.  A server which responds with a
1.1 version advertises its capabilities to both the requesting user agent
and any intervening proxies.  Since many of the 1.1 features have substantial
impact on how a proxy can interact with the origin server, I worry that
by limiting the response we will significantly slow the use of those
features.

I believe that the major/minor numbering scheme has been clear for a
long time.  If it breaks a browser or a script to get a protocol message
which advertises a higher minor version, we need to fix the browsers
and scripts, or we will face this problem every time the minor version
gets rev'ved.
			Ted Hardie
			NASA NIC


On Dec 20,  5:31pm, Dave Kristol wrote:
> Subject: HTTP response version, again
> I still consider the question unresolved as to what version an HTTP/1.x
> server should return for an HTTP/1.0 request.  I claim the draft
> (section 6.1) does not specify it:
>     "The first line of a Response message is the Status-Line,
>     consisting of the protocol version followed by ..."
>
> To review (minus the pros and cons), the issue is whether the server
> should return (1) HTTP/1.0 (the version of the request) or (2) HTTP/1.1
> (the version the server software understands).  The concern people have
> expressed is that in the first case you could never determine whether a
> server understands HTTP/1.1.
>
> I favor case one.  Henrik Frystyk Nielsen has noted that clients should
> begin to send HTTP/1.1 in their requests.  HTTP/1.1 servers would
> respond in kind.  HTTP/1.0 servers (with two known exceptions)
> generally respond to HTTP/1.1 requests with a response of HTTP/1.0.
> We could also [hack] recommend as a convention that servers include
> the protocol version that the server understands as a comment in the
> Server: header.
>
> My opinion notwithstanding, I offer wording for the two cases for
> section 6.1, to follow the Status-Line syntax:
>
> Case 1 (return HTTP/1.0 to HTTP/1.0 request):
> The protocol version in the response MUST be the lesser of HTTP/1.1 and
> the protocol version in the request.  The headers in the response MUST
> be consistent with the protocol version in the response.
>
> Case 2 (return HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/1.0 request):
> The protocol version in the response MUST be the greater of HTTP/1.1 and
> the protocol version in the request.  The headers in the response MUST
> be consistent with the protocol version in the request.
>
> We need to agree on one case or the other and (I believe) to choose words
> to add to the draft.
>
> Dave Kristol
>-- End of excerpt from Dave Kristol



-- 
Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 20 December 1996 14:54:11 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:19 EDT