Re: HTTP response version, again

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 .
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