- 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