W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: HTTP response version, again

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:37:54 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199612232237.XAA11808@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Rob Hartill <robh@imdb.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2176
Rob Hartill:
>Koen Holtman wrote:
    [Rob Hartill:]
>>> such actions should not be tolerated.
>>Your conclusion, not mine.  I interpret their action as a mistake, not
>>as an act of war.  You forget that about half the people on this list
>>(mis?)interpret the version number requirements of HTTP/1.x in the
>>same way as AOL does.
>but did any of them set out to deliberately sabotage the work of others
>by silently blocking access ?.

Geez.  Try to look at it from their side.  AOL thought it was
detecting a new type of protocol error, and decided to let their
proxies report it.  At least that is what I read from their response
to you which is quoted on http://www.apache.org/info/aol-http.html .
I would hardly call what they did deliberate sabotage.  Aggressive
diagnostics maybe.  And I wouldn't call their error message silent.

Also, they did respond to your mail about it, didn't they?

>>I don't think you should go to war with AOL.
>The "war" is over before it started. AOL have now surrendered. An AOL
>network director has told me that AOL will undo their HTTP/1.1

Well, count me pleasantly surprised at their speed.

>>I recommend that you treat AOL's proxies as inferior 1.0 implementations
>what new ?  :-)

I did not say `start to treat as inferior', I said `treat as


Received on Monday, 23 December 1996 14:40:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC