W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: RE-VERSION

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:22:42 -0400
Message-Id: <199708101422.KAA05759@devnix.agranat.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

  Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com> provides us with traces showing two
  deployed proxy implementations that plainly do not send correct HTTP
  version numbers on thier forwarded responses, and suggests a
  modification to 1.1 to provide a way to detect this broken behaviour
  so that correct implementations can work through it.

  Those implementations are and always have been _broken_.  They
  plainly do not conform to the specifications, and should be fixed
  and replaced.  It is true that as 1.1 origin servers and especially
  1.1 clients come into wider use, these broken 1.0 proxies will begin
  to cause problems; the client users will generally be the ones to
  suffer for it.  With IE4 preview versions being distributed I
  expect that this is already happening.

  If I were implementing a 1.1 browser, I would spend a few minutes
  adding an interface that used TRACE or OPTIONS to at least help
  users discover what the problem really is, and I'd put up some help
  pages about it (on 1.0 servers :-).  Then I'd add a link on the help
  pages to my (correct) proxy product so that users could complain to
  the adminstrator of the firewall or ISP whose broken proxy they are
  stuck behind.  In short, view this as a sales opportunity.

  These non-conforming proxies are no reason to do anything at all to
  the definition of HTTP.

--
Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 07:22:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:51 EDT