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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 10:49:12 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199612301649.AA294724552@merle.acns.nwu.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> 
> 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.

The theory of the major.minor version numbering scheme is that
if we do have to release a new version that causes problems for
HTTP/1.1, we will call it 2.0 not 1.2

But it looks like all parties don't have the same understanding
of what's supposed to be going on.
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 08:52:27 EST

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