- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:17:46 -0700 (MST)
- To: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@world.std.com>
- cc: Diwakar Shetty <Diwakar.Shetty@oracle.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 Nov 2002, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> All of the above are only problems when you have 2 or more buggy
> implementations in the same transaction - at some point, you just
> have to throw up your hands and give up.
Let's not forget the context of this thread. Diwakar Shetty asked to
explain the rationale behind the RFC wording. Whether the problem RFC
2616 tried to address still exists is pretty much irrelevant. The
problem was very real at the time persistent connection handling was
redesigned!
> At this point, there is little exuse for deploying any new 1.0
> system, and proxies in particular should be using only 1.1. I
> certainly hope that people who install proxies are checking to see
> whether or not they really do the right thing, but I have no
> practical way of checking that.
Many existing systems violate major HTTP/1.1 MUSTs. One of the most
popular proxies (Squid) is still HTTP/1.0. It is questionable whether
it is better to install a "simple mostly working HTTP/1.0 system" or a
"complex mostly working HTTP/1.1 system". There is little excuse for
selling seriously broken HTTP/1.1 implementations with known bugs, but
that is not the subject of this thread :-).
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 15:17:49 UTC