- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 19:33:17 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-early-hints.all@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 Jul 2017, at 7:23 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > Maybe the stronger wording should be oriented differently, such as > "Servers MUST not send 103 to HTTP/1.0 clients nor to any client > known not to support 1xx informational responses" ? This way it > leaves the possibility opened (ie rely on version and/or user-agent > or anything else once an exception is known). RFC7231 already says "Since HTTP/1.0 did not define any 1xx status codes, a server MUST NOT send a 1xx response to an HTTP/1.0 client." -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 7 July 2017 09:33:50 UTC