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

Re: 505 response a MUST?

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 22:44:39 -0800
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <9803012245.aa21039@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5421
>Yes indeed - this is quite important for something like Mandatory, if we
>want ever to be able to not use it without the method name fix. If there is
>any use of the version number at all then an application must assume that
>it can't understand a major version higher than what it knows about.

But Henrik, both are demonstrably false.  The "method name fix" does not work
with existing proxies, since many existing proxies will forward an unknown
method name even if they do not understand it.  Requiring that servers
puke on each new major version number does not work because HTTP/1.x
servers do not puke on each new major version number, nor should they
since the decision of when and why to bump the major version number is
essentially a political one.

In order for Mandatory to work, you must find a mechanism that works with
existing systems, and the only one that works right now is to probe the
connection with an OPTIONS request.  We can't standardize on something
that is based on a prerequisite contrary to reality.

Received on Sunday, 1 March 1998 22:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC