- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:16:09 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2006/09/20, at 1:29 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Sep 20, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> HTTP/1.0 persistent connections are documented in RFC2068. One >> case that's not explicitly covered is when a HTTP/1.1 client sends >> a request to a HTTP/1.0 server without a Connection: keep-alive >> header. >> >> My reading of 2068, 2616 and 2145 is that the fact that the client >> indicates HTTP/1.1 in the request advertises their support for >> persistent connections, and a HTTP/1.0 server (whether origin or >> proxy) may safely use a Content-Length delimited persistent response. > > What is an HTTP/1.0 server? OK, I'll bite. One that claims to conform to RFC1945 by sending the version string "HTTP/1.0" in responses. > It was the intent of the WG that folks who claim to be using HTTP on > the Internet should be doing so with HTTP/1.1, instead of making > silly excuses not to. If the WG really believed that, why bother with making 1.1. backwards- compatible at all? > Anyone still claiming to use HTTP/1.0 will have > to fend for themselves and test against every deployed system, since > the only standard is for HTTP/1.1. Well, that would be nice, but anecdotal evidence says that Squid is one of the most widely-deployed proxies out there, and it's still advertising HTTP/1.0. Saying that Squid has to fend for itself ignores the fact that everyone else has to deal with Squid (as we see with the prevalence of HTTP/1.1 clients sending Connection: keep-alive). -- Mark Nottingham mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 21:17:03 UTC