- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:30:17 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/04/2013, at 4:29 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:17PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I don't see anything in p1 2.6 Protocol Versioning that explicitly says an >> implementation ought to accept a message that has the same major version >> number it implements, but a higher minor version number. >> >> I think we need to spell this out, because IME some servers do error out on >> (for example) a HTTP/1.2 request. > > Makes sense but I'm not sure that these implementations will change for > this these days anyway, with 2.0 coming. Also we have seen with the > 1.0->1.1 transition that the minor change was not that seemless (specifically > due to persistent conns). Yeah, if this is uncontroversial, I can see adding a sentence or two (maybe with a requirement); if not, it's probably not worth the time. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 06:30:46 UTC