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


From: Josh <josh@early.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199708111512.LAA14483@orac.early.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: josh@early.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4165
According to Roy T. Fielding,
> >> in the response chain, how about the following compromise:
> >> 
> >>    Follow the existing versioning requirements as-is, except that if the
> >>    request is HTTP/1.0 (and only HTTP/1.0), then make the response HTTP/1.0.
> >
> >and this is for proxy, server or both?
> Both.
> ....Roy
Umm, not to further complicate things..
We discussed this at the \wg and afterwards in an offline discussion,
and it seems that if we assume that proxies will UPGRADE the request
to their highest version, then leaving things as is will be livable.
This is what 2145 seems to say..\

(this allows a proxy to use 1.1 when ever possible to the origin
server and be able to satisfy 1.0 and 1.1 clients on cache hits
with no ambiguity.. )

The only case still uncovered is the chunked upload..
Since that is a less common and more expensive operation, would
it be wise to say that before you do a request like that, you
should or must check the server version with OPTIONS?

Josh R Cohen /Server Engineer 				       josh@early.com
Netscape Communications Corp. 				       josh@geeks.org
(This message is sent from my private email account to reach me for 
	business related issues, mailto:josh@netscape.com )
Received on Monday, 11 August 1997 08:13:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC