W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #273: HTTP-Version should be redefined as fixed length pair of DIGIT . DIGIT

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:22:18 +1200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0ca84e3e10acc096793191253afe9c46@treenet.co.nz>
 On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:08:46 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It should treat it the same as receiving a message like this:
>
> GET / HTTP/A.B
>
> which hopefully we cover already...
>
>

 Indeed.
 "
    When comparing HTTP versions, the numbers MUST be compared
    numerically rather than lexically.  For example, HTTP/2.4 is a lower
    version than HTTP/2.13, which in turn is lower than HTTP/12.3.
    Leading zeros MUST be ignored by recipients and MUST NOT be sent.
 "

 The implementations cited are in violation of a MUST.

 I'm more inclined to propose that this update clarify the version as 
 "HTTP/1.2" now. Which if the earlier post was correct was "merely" a 
 text omission in the 2616 development.

 AYJ

>
> On 22/06/2011, at 10:36 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-22 03:10, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> OK, setting the milestone for -15 for this, as there doesn't seem 
>>> to be any objection.
>>
>> So how does this affect a recipient of a message with multiple 
>> digits.
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>>  GET / HTTP/1.10
>>  Host: example.com
>>
>> ...being received by an HTTP/1.1 server implemented according to 
>> HTTPbis.
>>
>> Should it reject the message as invalid?
>>
>> (I don't have a problem with that, but it seems we need to state 
>> that one way or the other)
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 22:22:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT