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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Gregory J. Woodhouse <gjw@wnetc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:17:11 -0800 (PST)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: 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
Message-Id: <Pine.SGI.3.95.961220160039.19994A-100000@shellx.best.com>
It seems to me that the purpose of the version number in the reponse is not
to advertise the capabilities of the server but to indicate which protocol
version forms the basis of its response. The appropriate response to a
request may well depend upon the version. For example, a chunked reply
appropriate in response to a 1.1 request but not a 1.0, and the HTTP/1.1 in
the reponse header indicates which protocol version forms the basis of a
response. Similarly, for error reponses, if the version number is 1.1, then
the response indicates that the request, considered as a 1.1 request,
resulted in an error condition. If the version in the reponse were 1.0,
then tht would indicate that the request was treated as a 1.0 request.

So, I would say the version in the reponse MUST be the lesser of the requet
version and the server version. If the server wishes to advertise that it
supports a higher protocol version, then this should be done in the rponse
header, either using Server: (which I don't think is *that* much of a
hack), or perhaps by overloading Upgrade:.
 
---
gjw@wnetc.com    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
to come up with a better one.
Received on Friday, 20 December 1996 16:28:54 EST

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