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

Re: RE-VERSION

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 17:31:26 -0700
To: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9708121731.aa18599@paris.ics.uci.edu>
>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.

It sounds to me like you are trying to solve the PEP problem within
a single version number, which simply doesn't work in HTTP.

There are hundreds of possible extensions that may require understanding
on the part of the recipient, but the mechanism for indicating that
should identify the required extensions, not come up with some
min/max number based on the HTTP-version.  The HTTP-version semantics
were restricted to the "message level" -- what is necessary for two
HTTP applications to communicate -- because anything more than that
was clearly a rathole and better solved by a Mandatory header field
(present in the HTTP spec back in December 1994) or Dave Kristol's
extension mechanism which later evolved into PEP.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 1997 17:34:52 EDT

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