W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: 505 response a MUST?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:21:02 PST
Message-Id: <005301bd43d6$5e7c2ae0$f467010d@bronze.parc.xerox.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Cc: jg@w3.org
I'll go for MUST 505. Any counter-opinions?


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: jg@w3.org <jg@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: 505 response a MUST?


>
>  Another issue found while trying to document supported features
>  (there appears to be some value to this rather tedious exercise :)
>
>  draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-01 defines:
>
>    10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
>
>    The server does not support, or refuses to support, the HTTP protocol
>    version that was used in the request message. The server is indicating
>    that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the same
>    major version as the client, as described in section 3.1, other than
>    with this error message. The response SHOULD contain an entity
>    describing why that version is not supported and what other protocols
>    are supported by that server.
>
>  ... and section 3.1 spells out various rules about version number
>  usage, but does not specify that a server MUST send a 505 response
>  if it receives a major version number higher than the highest
>  version it implements.
>
>  I've tried a few of the servers out there, and they all return
>  success when I send HTTP/2.0 requests (which were 1.1 requests with
>  2.0 labels).
>
>--
>Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
>Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 February 1998 15:23:34 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:13 EDT