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

Re: RE-VERSION

From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 16:35:35 -0500 (CDT)
To: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970810160854.27651E-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:

> Klaus Weide wrote:
> > <http://www.apache.org/dist/patches/apply_to_1.2.1/msie_4_0b2_fixes.patch>.
> > By the way, that workaround at first look (according to the included
> > description of the problem) seems to be a practical application of the
> > exemption in RFC 2145 2.3 last para:
> >   "An HTTP server MAY send a lower response version, if it is known or
> >    suspected that the client incorrectly implements the HTTP
> >    specification, but this should not be the default, and this SHOULD
> >    NOT be done if the request version is HTTP/1.1 or greater."
> > On second look, it seems that the desired "downgrading" effect for the
> > client in question could also be achieved by sending "Connection: close"
> > and not sending chunked entities, while still responding with "HTTP/1.1".
> 
> Maybe so, I see no virtue in that. What is the point of complying to the
> standard while working around a broken beta? The solution we implemented
> was expedient.

I am not complaining about the workaround - I agree that it is better to
have a working solution than to have none but comply to the standard.

> We should, perhaps, note that, if the directive is used,
> the server no longer complies with RFC 2145.

I think it still complies conditionally, it's just a SHOULD.

I was more examining the standard, not your solution.  If a working
workaround for those two problems would *require* violation of the SHOULD
in 2145 2.3 last para, then this would be a good reason for relaxing that
SHOULD requirement - because Apache should not be "punished" for such a
workaround.  As it is (if I understand correctly), the workaround could
be changed, at least in principle, so as no to affect compliance.
There may be other good reasons why the SHOULD should be dropped, it just
turns out that this example isn't a good case for it.

    Klaus
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 14:36:43 EDT

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