Re: HTTP response version, again

> 
> 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.