W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2000

Re: Caching Problem with 1.0 and a Proxy Server

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:40:12 -0800
Message-Id: <200011080140.RAA13136@wera.pa.dec.com>
To: "Tim Coates" <tcoates@dynamics.net>
Cc: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
    1. What meaning (other than the obvious) is attached to the protocol
    identifier (e.g. HTTP/1.0) that is contained in a browser request or
See RFC 2145. "Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers",
     J. C. Mogul, R. Fielding, J. Gettys, H. Frystyk, May 1997. 

     HTTP request and response messages include an HTTP protocol
     version number. Some confusion exists concerning the proper use
     and interpretation of HTTP version numbers, and concerning
     interoperability of HTTP implementations of different protocol
     versions. This document is an attempt to clarify the situation.

Read it carefully, and your questions should be answered.  A
proxy that converts an HTTP/1.1 request message to an HTTP/1.0
request is almost certainly legal.  I would be more worried
(well, "pissed off" is more accurate) about an HTTP/1.0 proxy
that does NOT label its messages as HTTP/1.0.

    2. How strictly should a web browser use the protocol identifier in
    processing a response from a web server?
Whenever an HTTP protocol header could be misinterpreted if
you are using the wrong version of the protocol spec, then
the browser should be very cautious about using it if the
version number seems to be inconsistent.  The HTTP/1.1 spec
(RFC 2616) documents a number of specific cases.

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 01:42:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:16:36 UTC