httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: HTTP/1.1
Date Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:40:00 GMT
On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > I agree; it's a large patch, and there are sure to be problems, but I
> > think it's better to commit it all as is, and fix the problems, then to
> > keep revising the patch. (all the pieces fit together, so it'd be hard to
> > split it up into seperate patches, as well).
> Nope, don't commit that one -- we cannot change the server's HTTP version
> until after we test the HTTP/1.1 features, which won't be finished until
> the IESG approves the draft.  We don't need to change SERVER_PROTOCOL
> until the last minute anyway.

Yes we do. We've been through this before - the server must behave
differently when it's tagged as HTTP/1.1 then when it's tagged as

Namely, if I send a request of:

GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: hostname

A server tagged as HTTP/1.0 must not open a persistent connection, wheras
a server tagged as HTTP/1.1 must. Rather an important distinction, IMO.

> Skimming it, the one code problem I see is the fixed boundary for
> byte ranges -- that won't work because the server may be sending
> a file which was once generated by a prior byterange output (e.g., an
> example from the documentation or prior test cases or somebody's bug report).
> At least part of the boundary (preferably most of it) must be pseudo-random.

Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. Narf. Anyone know a good boundary-generating

> Unknown -- it took them two months to approve HTTP/1.0 as informational
> after the last comment was made.

Hmm. I assume the editors of the draft have indicated to the IESG that -06
should be considered as a proposed standard? I'd assume so, but doesn't show anything
about it.

-- Alexei Kosut <>            The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message