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

RE: Minutes from HTTP/1.1 Implementor's dinner

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:09:43 -0800
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F485043F8B95@red-44-msg.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'" <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
liblnet == wininet
I did offer space, power, and catering but I said I would have to
investigate the company story option. =P

	Yaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 10, 1997 1:11 PM
> To:	'http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com'
> Subject:	Minutes from HTTP/1.1 Implementor's dinner
> 
> I'm posting these for Rohit.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> HTTP 1.1 Implementers' Dinner
> Rohit Khare, Dec 9, 1997
> 
> [The general idea was to walk through the document looking for capitalized
> 
> MUST
> and MUST NOT requirements. This discussion helped clarify that we
> defintely 
> need
> automated tools to track implementations' support for Draft Standard 
> documentation
> -- we didn't even touch the MAYs and SHOULDs.
> 
> What follows is a semi-transcript... Rohit]
> 
> Prescription of a new issue in 4.4 Message Length:
> notification to user agents (JG:take to mlist and deal with there)
> Something about warning to users seems egregious
> 
> MUST notify the user is too strong -- is it required for robustness
> in the prot?
> 
> LM rules the meta-discussion out of order : are there two interoperable 
> implementations?
> or not? Doesn't seem to be.
> 
> Client guys: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Yaron Goland
> Server: Rich (IBM), Scott (Agranat),
> Proxy: henrik, daniel, yaron, Rich
> Client: Sami Sun (URN resolver)
> Server: Dave, Henry, Jigsaw, Scott
> Dave Kristol, Daniel Veillard are also present
> 
> YG: there are currently 265 requirments
> YG: will be releasing a spreadsheet of all 265 with what IE4 and IE5 do,
> by
> january.
> 
> Section 3.1
> could be prefaced by leading zeros. MS doesn't know, but will fix if
> found.
> Rich: do handle it. Henry: handles it
> 
> HFN: would be more interesting to test if "1.2" works as a test case
> 
> YG: these answers I'm giving tonght are for IE4 as I know it. BUT,
> we have libInet, which is eqivalent to libwww
> (which means we have common support). See,
> IE4 complies with "all IANA charsets", but other apps ontop of INET may
> ignore it.
> 
> (ie. their 3rd party developers may be able to pass illegit stuff down 
> through
> the api. For example, it doesn't check that mimetypes passed in have no 
> white
> space.)
> 
> ----- Major and minor must be treated as separate integers. (3.1 , 3 
> paragraphs in )
> 
> [Rich has a server Don't list ]
> [Henry has don'ts for must and should, but not mays]
> 
> JG: WHAT we need is two separate implementations that have been tested to
> interoperate -- NOT necc shipped, much less commercial and supported. JUST
> had to be implemented once.
> 
> Just a client and server? JG: I'm more comfortable with two each (c,s,p)
> That's my personal belief
> 
> YG: given that we don't need shipment, we may try testing against IE5.
> 
> SL: the most important result of today's dinner is to list out what must
> be
> tested ASAP
> 
> YG: now that our testers are up to speed, we're ready to hit anything that
> people put up for testing.
> 
> We need a standardized template for testing ***
> 
> Need a suite we can automate fromthe client; send us a list of
> URLs we should hit, so we can automate the testing process (YG)
> 
> LM: it would be great to do some multivendor proxy chains.
> 
> RK: even if we set up a chain from the same vendor...
> 
> JG: most features in here can be implemented in 1.0 and that's just fine
> (so let's all put our 1.0 proxies in the test?)
> 
> HFN: put needs to be tested (with chunked, byterange, through proxys,
> put things should be tested as rigorously as GET.
> 
> ....
> 
> Do you [ms] have any international test sites?
> 
> Henry: we have our own satellite networks, but we need to have
> plug-nd-play
> boxes shipped in. We have a network simulator (sits between two lans and
> it
> sets error rate, delay, etc). If we ever do a face-to-face, we'll bring
> it.
> 
> LM: did anyone get back to the connectathon folks.  (Quentin Clark, 
> cthon@sun.com)
> Scott has been in touch, but no firm plan.
> 
> Scott asked for a test profile.
> 
> <time to order dinner>
> 
> Henry: speaking of connectathon, a few years, they did a TCPIP. ALl they
> provided was powerand space, not too useful. We'd be willing to do that.
> 
> YG offers space, power, catering AND a trip to the company store...
> 
> Section 3.1 continued, lots of straightfoward ones.
> 
> JG suggests reading it, rather than reading aloud.
> 
> Rich: I'm worried about proxies up and downgrading to versions.
> Henry: I know it does that. Rich thinks so, but doesn't know for sure.
> (RE-VERSION)
> 
> Reference to the leach / mogul versioning draft. Final text is in the
> spec since munich (JG). Jigsaw does -- I sent a 1.0 req and it upgrades
> (Scott reports).
> 
> 3.2.2 has a SHOULD which is too srong (numeric IP addresses). IP Addresses
> are FQDNs and fully legal. SHOULD become should -- lowercase.
> 
> 3.2.3
> HFN: the main kludge there is spaces.
> YG: we're not compliant and *can't be* . Our servers are not
> case-sensitive
> and we're not going to change it. We had a big long meeting about it...
> 
> LM: of COURSE you do this. YG: no, we don't
> 
> JG: we have atleast two W3C environments which do it, though.
> 
> JG: we've mad w3.org case-INsensitive... /HyperText/MarkUp was confusing 
> everyone...
> 
> YG: in a perfect world, the server should be case-insensitive and does the
> 
> mapping and sends Location: . But, we work offline on DOS, so we strip
> case 
> on the
> client.
> 
> JG: my rule is protocols should be case-preserving but insensitive.
> 
> Summary: do we have a third implementation which is case-preserving?
> 
> Henry: if you have a client acting as a client-side cache, is the lookup
> beyond the host-name case sensitive. IE is insensitive. IBM had to 
> implement
> an escaping system to be preserving -- so their proxy does.
> 
> Scott commits to adding a test case for this.
> 
> 3.3 -----
> 
> must accept all three date formats (henry, scott, rich, and yaron say yes)
> 
> 3.3.1 ----
> 
> Yes, they're silly, but do they work?
> 
> PASSED
> 
> 3.3.2 ---
> SL: WHY is it here? who uses delta-seconds? Editorial issue to JIM
> 
> 3.4 ---
> 
> YG: we are compliant
> Rich: we are compliant
> 
> Henry: I think the MUST is not necessary, editorial issue -- should it be
> normative . NEVER MIND -- it's a quote from the MIME source text.
> 
> 3.5 ---
> 
> IE supports deflate and gzip. NOT compress. NOT support x-gzip. Yaron to 
> harass.
> 
> JG: issue around "identity"
> 
> RIch: we don't send idenity (though could be configured)
> 
> YG: we NEVER send qvalues.
> 
> HFN: w3c handles Identity - -HFN to check this.
> 
> Henry: we don't know about identity, since it's post-2068.
> 
> Scott to check as well.
> 
> HFN: C-E identity should never happen. ONLY in A-E.
> 
> -----
> 
> Chunked transfer encoding: sent by many.
> 
> YG: our proxy is 1.0, hence doesn't do chunked onward (same for Rich)
> 
> Henry: IMHO, pipelined PUT and POST is looking for trouble...
> 
> Henrik says W3C code is OK.
> 
> IBM: has not impl trailers. Scott: no trailers
> 
> THERE ARE NOT TWO IMPLS OF TRAILERS AT THIS TABLE -- no one is generating 
> them!
> THERE ARE INTEROPERABLE CHUNKS
> THERE ARE INTEROPERABLE TRAILERS
> BUT NOT TOGETHER>
> 
> <Dinner>
> 
> 
> 3.6.1 ----
> 
> DONE
> 
> 3.7 ----
> 
> LWS in mime type.
> (client-side only?)
> 
> YG: compliant
> W3C: compliant
> 
> PROCESS QUESTION: When documenting for DRAFT standard, do you have to 
> document
> WHICH two, or that there ARE two.
> 
> in 3.7.0 -- parametrization of mimetypes, forking of viewer. Case 
> insensitive.
> 
> IE ignores charset on mime-type.
> editorial [sic] - YARON Has more  -- "to the and inform"
> 
> YG: we sniff charset from the stream. We don't do charset. Uses
> statistical
> algorithms to guess charset.
> 
> LM decides IE4 is NOT compliant because it ignores charset parameters.
> Charset is the RIGHT way.
> 
> YG: I spent 2 hours in a life-and-death battle, and we decided life sucks.
> I had i18n experts begging me to do some fixes. We lost. URLs are OPAQUE.
> 
> JG: the answer from Jon Postel is that we should have documented who has 
> done which
> things. We should go by sections and note exceptions.
> 
> RESOLVED: there ARE two W3C user-agents that passes parameters correctly
> (including lynx and netscape)
> 
> LM: Are there any clients that send charset on put or post.
> (Henrik does put/post with chunked. IE5 will, too)
> 
> ------
> 
> Multipart types
> 
> IBM decodes some multiparts.
> MHTML defines a use for multipart.
> LM: do we have implementatons of multipart at all?
> YES: file upload is multipart, and thus:
> Microsoft admits, yes on client, yes on server.
> 
> IBMs proxy may not check that the epologue isn't empty.
> 
> ----
> 3.8
> syntax of UA -- all compliant
> (Kristol isn't yet)
> ----
> 3.9
> qvalues
> rathole
> End of dinner.
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 1997 12:45:42 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:04 EDT