W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997


From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 03:51:03 +0200
Message-Id: <33EE7007.41C6@netscape.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: josh@netscape.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4155

I had written a long message outlining my reasons for raising
the RE-VERSION issue, but after writing it, and with the help
of John Klensin, Ive realized that the real issue
here isnt the response version exactly.  The problem
I have is that in the spec, 1.1 proxy behaviour when talking
to a 1.0 client and 1.1 server is underspecified.

It isnt clear how a proxy should act in generating response
versions, from cached or origin responses, how it should
determine cache applicability, and still make best advantage
of 1.1 features, in a mixed version situation.

If we require that 1.1 proxies always upgrade requests
to their highest version, then this issue will go away.
(at least from me )  If this is required, then the proxy
will have all the information it needs to determine how
to act, and it will be the proxy's responsibility to
downgrade the response to a lower version client.
Received on Sunday, 10 August 1997 18:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC