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

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:35:48 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19961230133547.0067fd10@incontext.ca>
To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 10:13 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Blake Winton wrote:
>> >> It's not the response that being labeled by the HTTP/1.1 header, it's
>> >> the server's capability.
>> >A lot of people have said this, but I don't see where it is spelled out.
>> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-07.txt
>>   3.1 HTTP Version
>>   Applications sending Request or Response messages, as defined by this
>>   specification, MUST include an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1". Use of this
>>   version number indicates that the sending application is at least
>>   conditionally compliant with this specification.
>I'm not sure I agree with your intepretation. My take on the above is that
>a) The message (request or response) complies with HTTP/1.1
>AND
>b) An application is not allowed to claim a version number for a message it
>sends unless it is at least conditionally compliant with that version of
>the protocol.

It most definately says that, but I feel that it says something more...

>It seems to me tht you are interpreting the above paragraph as if though it
>said:
>
>Applications MUST send the highest version number with which they are at
>least conditionally compliant in each message.

Which would seem to be bourne out in a later paragraph of section 3.1

  The HTTP version of an application is the highest HTTP version for which
  the application is at least conditionally compliant.

>The difference is tht I see this paragraph as a protective measure to
>prevent applications from claiming to support a version number with which
>they are not at least conditionally compliant, not a requirement that
>applications advertise the highest version number with which they are
>compliant.

I see your point, and I agree that there is a measure of protectiveness
about it, but I believe that it can and should serve both purposes.  Why
should we throw away a bit of information which may become useful?
 
>> Of course 3.1 also says
>>   Since the
>>   protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, a
>>   proxy/gateway MUST never send a message with a version indicator which
>>   is greater than its actual version; if a higher version request is
>>   received, the proxy/gateway MUST either downgrade the request version,
>>   respond with an error, or switch to tunnel behavior.
>Good example.

Thanks.  I'd just like to point out a sentence I missed.

  Since the
  protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, ...

This indicates to me that the only proper response a 1.1 compilant server
should send back is HTTP/1.1

Blake.

P.S.  I'm reading the mailing list, and it seems to get here before e-mail
      which is sent directly to me, so I would be as happy not to get two
      copies of any given message, if the rest of you don't mind.  :)
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 10:40:12 EST

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