new issue: confusing statement about HTTP/1.1 version numbers

I agree.

** Reply to note from Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> Mon, 30 Mar 98 14:16:30 PST
>   
> Section 3.1 (HTTP Version) of the latest draft currently includes
> this statement:
>   
>   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 think this is at least confusing, and possibly wrong.  For example,
> the first sentence directly contradicts some statements in RFC2145,
> which is cited a few paragraphs earlier.  The parenthetical statement
> is also odd, since a completely normal HTTP/1.0 implementation could
> send messages that are defined by "this specification".
>   
> The most important statement that we need to make here is the second
> sentence in the paragraph, and I think this is where the MUST needs
> to be.
>   
> I propose rewriting this pararagraph to be:
>   
>    An application that sends a Request or Response message that
>    includes HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" MUST be at least conditionally
>    compliant with this specification.  Applications that are at least
>    conditionally compliant with this specification SHOULD use an
>    HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" in their messages, and MUST do so for any
>    message that is not compatible with HTTP/1.0.  For more details on
>    when to send specific HTTP-Version values, see RFC 2145 [36].
>   
> I.e.,
> 	you MUST NOT say you're HTTP/1.1 unless you comply.
> 	if you do comply, you SHOULD say so.
> 	if your message isn't intelligible to an HTTP/1.0 recipient,
> 		say you're HTTP/1.1.
>   
> -Jeff
>   
> 
 

Richard L. Gray
will code for chocolate

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 1998 07:39:31 UTC