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: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:28:13 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110624132813.GB3421@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 09:23:28AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >I don't think this is an issue, because even if the server understands
> >HTTP/1.10 as major=1, minor=10, it will just not know this version, and
> >the draft states that such a version will not exist anyway since only
> >one digit can be used for the minor.
> 
> It won't know the version, but it doesn't need to, as 10 > 1.

Agreed as long as we don't change any minor semantics between 1.1 and 1.10
(eg: the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 about persistent connections
becoming default). If we decided that we'd go up to .10, the problem would
suddenly arise that for many implementations, .10 would be matched as .1
and appear lower as .2.

> >In my opinion, it would be an issue if we had already used such a version,
> >which is not the case. Even HTTP/0.9 was post-named with a single digit.
> 
> True.
> 
> So, summarizing: it *could* make existing implementations non-compliant, 
> but it really doesn't matter as there are no real-world HTTP messages 
> that are affected (like in "outside test cases").
> 
> So we would:
> 
> - simplify the ABNF (that's the whole point, right?)
> 
> - adjust the prose
> 
> - mark this as change from RFC 2616
> 
> ?

Yes that would seem the best solution.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 13:28:48 GMT

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