W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Upload negotiation

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:46:55 +1200
Message-ID: <47FB855F.8040307@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

It's quite an interesting interop issue though between 1.1 and 1.0, 
since there are more parts to a message than just the headers.

e.g the status codes.  The set for 1.0 is relatively small.  If a sender 
is sending a status code back, surely it's required to sanitise it for 
the recipient?  Or does it expect a downstream agent to pass it through 
yet only understand the major error code.


Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ons 2008-04-09 klockan 01:30 +1200 skrev Adrien de Croy:
>> although it looks like RFC2145 ought to have been superseded... couple 
>> of issues in it. (precludes Expects from HTTP/1.1, suggests sending 505 
>> response for version issues, even though this code not defined in HTTP/1.0)
> HTTP/1.0 isn't really relevant there..
> 505 is to be returned if an HTTP/1.x server gets a HTTP/2.x or higher
> request.. or if an HTTP/2.x only server gets a HTTP/1.x request.
> HTTP/1.X servers will never respond with 505 to HTTP/1.0 requests.
> Regards
> Henrik

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 14:46:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC