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


From: Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 20:17:56 -0500 (CDT)
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970811194740.20962G-100000@xochi.tezcat.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4190
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Foteos Macrides wrote:

[about Apache 1.[23] ]
> 	Ah!  An implementation issue, not a terminology issue. :)
> 	It *is* an HTTP/1.1 server, so one would not predict a serious
> problem during this transition, just as the shortcut had no apparent
> problem for the old HTTP/1.0 proxies during the HTTP/0.9 -> HTTP/1.0
> transition.  It would become a problem for an HTTP/1.1 -> HTTP/1.2
> transition.  

According to the "New Features in Apache 1.2" page, 
  Aside from the optional proxy module (which operates as HTTP/1.0),
  Apache is conditionally compliant with the HTTP/1.1 [...]
I am not sure what this means, i.e. does it still act as an HTTP/1.1
server when the proxy is used, aside from the version number question,
and as far as a client needs to know.  For the concrete (although 
currently rather theoretical) question about accepting chunked encoding,
would the proxy decode a request body before forwarding it.

> But one can also predict that it will be fixed ASAP,
> and hopefully the current Apache servers will all have been replaced
> by then. :)
> 	By "serious" problem I mean that sharing of worthwhile information
> fails (just to be clear about my terminology :).
> 				Fote

Received on Monday, 11 August 1997 18:20:34 UTC

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