- From: Blake Winton <bwinton@incontext.ca>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 13:35:48 -0500
- To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 10:13 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote: >On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Blake Winton wrote: >> >> It's not the response that being labeled by the HTTP/1.1 header, it's >> >> the server's capability. >> >A lot of people have said this, but I don't see where it is spelled out. >> http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-07.txt >> 3.1 HTTP Version >> Applications sending Request or Response messages, as defined by this >> specification, MUST include an HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1". Use of this >> version number indicates that the sending application is at least >> conditionally compliant with this specification. >I'm not sure I agree with your intepretation. My take on the above is that >a) The message (request or response) complies with HTTP/1.1 >AND >b) An application is not allowed to claim a version number for a message it >sends unless it is at least conditionally compliant with that version of >the protocol. It most definately says that, but I feel that it says something more... >It seems to me tht you are interpreting the above paragraph as if though it >said: > >Applications MUST send the highest version number with which they are at >least conditionally compliant in each message. Which would seem to be bourne out in a later paragraph of section 3.1 The HTTP version of an application is the highest HTTP version for which the application is at least conditionally compliant. >The difference is tht I see this paragraph as a protective measure to >prevent applications from claiming to support a version number with which >they are not at least conditionally compliant, not a requirement that >applications advertise the highest version number with which they are >compliant. I see your point, and I agree that there is a measure of protectiveness about it, but I believe that it can and should serve both purposes. Why should we throw away a bit of information which may become useful? >> Of course 3.1 also says >> Since the >> protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, a >> proxy/gateway MUST never send a message with a version indicator which >> is greater than its actual version; if a higher version request is >> received, the proxy/gateway MUST either downgrade the request version, >> respond with an error, or switch to tunnel behavior. >Good example. Thanks. I'd just like to point out a sentence I missed. Since the protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, ... This indicates to me that the only proper response a 1.1 compilant server should send back is HTTP/1.1 Blake. P.S. I'm reading the mailing list, and it seems to get here before e-mail which is sent directly to me, so I would be as happy not to get two copies of any given message, if the rest of you don't mind. :)
Received on Monday, 30 December 1996 10:40:12 UTC