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


From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:50:37 -0500 (CDT)
To: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970811184451.9331A-100000@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4189
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, John Franks wrote:

> A revised formal definition:
> The response version of a response is 1.N provided
> every HTTP header or footer in the response is defined in HTTP/1.N and
> at least one header or footer in the response is not defined in
> HTTP/1.(N-1).  For the purposes of this definition a header is
> an HTTP header provided it is defined in HTTP/1.X for some X.
> On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > 
> > As given by your formal definition, the "[response] version"
> > ... can be trivially derived from the
> > message.  It just requires tables of all headers defined by the various
> > protocol versions, nothing else.  Therefore it is totally redundant.
> > 
> Whether this is "trivial" to
> implement is a question I will leave to proxy implementors.
> as a server implementor, I can tell you that the response version is a
> trivial byproduct of a server producing the response.

And I should have added that redundancy is a key ingredient of robustness.

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University
Received on Monday, 11 August 1997 16:51:56 UTC

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