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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Abigail <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:14:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199612301514.KAA06106@melgor.ny.fnx.com>
To: brian@organic.com
Cc: hedlund@best.com, dmk@research.bell-labs.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@w3.org
You, Brian Behlendorf, wrote:
++ 
++ On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, M. Hedlund wrote:
++ > On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Dave Kristol wrote:
++ > > I still consider the question unresolved as to what version an HTTP/1.x
++ > > server should return for an HTTP/1.0 request.
++ > [...]
++ > > Case 1 (return HTTP/1.0 to HTTP/1.0 request):
++ > > Case 2 (return HTTP/1.1 to HTTP/1.0 request):
++ > 
++ > I agree with Dave that Case 1 is preferable.  AOL's proxies apparently
++ > started giving users errors this week when a new version of Apache was
++ > released, which responded to 1.0 requests with 1.1 responses (Case 2).  
++ > While this instance will likely be fixed next week, it does indicate how an
++ > HTTP/1.0 client can be confused by an HTTP/1.1 response.
++ 
++ No, it indicates how a company with little concern for standards can dictate
++ implementations in other products through technological inertia.  There's
++ nothing in the 1.1 response which should cause problems with the 1.0 proxy or
++ 1.0 client - section 3.1 of both the 1.0 and 1.1 specs promise this, and (as
++ best this group can tell) 1.1 fulfills this promise.  

But that wasn't known when HTTP/1.0 was made. It also isn't known
whether HTTP/1.2 response headers won't contain anything that causes
problems for HTTP/1.1 clients.

++ If it becomes common acceptance that 1.0 and 1.1 are incompatible, then no one
++ will ever upgrade to 1.1.  This is exactly the perception this wg labored long
++ and hard to prevent.

I don't follow this logic. Even if HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/1.0 would be
completely imcompatible, as long as HTTP/1.1 servers talk HTTP/1.0 to
HTTP/1.0 clients, there won't be a problem.

++ The big question is, what will happen first: will AOL fix their proxies, or
++ will Apache users "fix" [hack] their servers?  Client service dictates that
++ we at Organic hack our servers, but the Apache development group has no such
++ requirements.  

I think the problem is more fundamental. If we force HTTP/1.0 clients
to accept HTTP/1.1 reponses, they also have to accept HTTP/1.2,
HTTP/1.7, etc responses. That of course means no HTTP/1.x header can
ever contain something which causes problems with HTTP/1.0 clients.



Abigail
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 08:47:35 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:20 EDT