- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:58:43 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 09:53:31AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-23 00:08, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >It should treat it the same as receiving a message like this:
> >
> >GET / HTTP/A.B
> >
> >which hopefully we cover already...
>
> Really?
>
> I would have thought that an HTTP/1.1 compliant recipient would accept
> something labeled HTTP/1.10.
Julian, I have seen many times the version checked with :
memcmp(version, "HTTP/1.1", 8)
One of the reasons probably is that the next char might be either a CR or
an LF, so it's not easy to quickly check for an exact version. But as a
result of the above, "HTTP/1.10" would be matched as "HTTP/1.1".
> If it does, and we change the spec, we will make it non-compliant.
I don't think this is an issue, because even if the server understands
HTTP/1.10 as major=1, minor=10, it will just not know this version, and
the draft states that such a version will not exist anyway since only
one digit can be used for the minor.
In my opinion, it would be an issue if we had already used such a version,
which is not the case. Even HTTP/0.9 was post-named with a single digit.
Regards,
Willy
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 04:59:14 UTC