httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sameer <sam...@c2.net>
Subject Re: HTTP/1.1 header problem (fwd)
Date Sat, 21 Dec 1996 02:06:00 GMT
	yah know I think we might be wrong. I'm reading the 1.0 spec:

HTTP/1.0 clients must: 

     recognize the format of the Status-Line for HTTP/1.0 responses; 
     understand any valid response in the format of HTTP/0.9 or HTTP/1.0. 

	That looks like if we send http/1.1 they can bail if they
want.

	I haven't read the whole spec, mind you.

	Isn't Roy our local HTTP cop? What does Roy have to say? I
hope he isn't on vacation or something.


> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that they have a point. It's not
> really reasonable to say that an http/1.1 server should respond to a 1.0
> request with a 1.1 response, since that obviously is a major change in the
> operating functionality according to the 1.0 spec.
> 
> Yes, according to the 1.1 spec, it should be able to respond with either,
> but this seems like a change that should never have been made - since it
> plainly goes against the statement about it being compatible with the other
> versions of the same major version.
> 
> Granted, up till seeing this comment I was in agreement with everyone else
> about this, but this throws a minor wrench in the works.
> 
> -- Nathan
> 
> At 1:30 AM +0000 12/21/96, Rob Hartill wrote:
> >Duh...
> >
> >stuborn fools.
> >
> >----- Forwarded message from George Boyce -----
> >
> >Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:22:18 -0800
> >From: George Boyce <grboyce@aol.net>
> >Message-Id: <9612201622.ZM12295@spyder.office.aol.com>
> >Reply-To: web-support@aol.net
> >X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.2S.3 08feb96 MediaMail)
> >To: apache-bugs@apache.org
> >Subject: HTTP/1.1 header problem
> >Cc: web-support@aol.net, web-access@aol.net
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am responsible for the operation of the AOL web access service.
> >
> >Last week my development team gave me a new version of our system. Among the
> >changes was a "fix" to allow connections only from HTTP/1.0 compliant servers.
> >There are at least four issues with this fix...
> >
> >1. We should not have installed code which changes the behaviour of the
> >service
> >without a discussion of the changes. We should have seen the other problems
> >coming and taken responsible action to minimize the impact. I think
> >development
> >agrees with me but only time will tell.
> >
> >2. We discovered a bug in this code which sometimes incorrectly identified the
> >type of headers being returned. A fix for this will be installed as soon as
> >possible.
> >
> >3. We have not supported HTTP/0.9 for a while so that was no change.
> >
> >4. But a recent version of the apache server does send HTTP/1.1 headers even
> >when contacted by a HTTP/1.0 browser and proxy. After careful thought and loud
> >debate, I lost, and we consider this to be inconsistent with the HTTP/1.0
> >spec.
> >We also consider our error message to be consistent with the HTTP/1.1 spec,
> >though our service is certainly not HTTP/1.1 compliant, and of course it isn't
> >very friendly to our members.
> >
> >The 1.0 spec doesn't allow the server to respond with a 1.1 response:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html
> ><<
> >HTTP/1.0 servers must:
> >...
> >     respond appropriately with a message in the same protocol version used by
> >the client.
> >>>
> >
> >And our proxy is responding with an error as even the 1.1 spec allows.
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-07.txt
> ><<
> >Since the protocol version indicates the protocol capability of the sender, a
> >proxy/gateway MUST never send a message with a version indicator which is
> >greater than its actual version; if a higher version request is received, the
> >proxy/gateway MUST either downgrade the request version, respond with an
> >error,
> >or switch to tunnel behavior.
> >>>
> >
> >In the spirit of making things work, our development team will work on a
> >way to
> >downgrade HTTP/1.1 requests and responses to HTTP/1.0. Until then, would you
> >folks consider having your server respond to HTTP/1.0 requests with HTTP/1.0
> >replies?
> >
> >Looking forward to your reply. We certainly want the AOL web access service to
> >work with the apache server. Please don't listen to those few who yell at AOL
> >for all of our screwups in the past and future. We generally had a reason for
> >most of them; it is really difficult to run a reliable service for this many
> >people.
> >
> >George
> >
> >--
> >George Boyce
> >Director, AOL/GNN Internet Ops, 703.453.4152, Fax: 453.4013, grboyce@aol.net
> >
> >----- End of forwarded message from George Boyce -----
> >
> >--
> >Rob Hartill.       Internet Movie Database Ltd.    http://www.imdb.com/
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Nathan Neulinger                  Univ. of Missouri - Rolla
> EMail: nneul@umr.edu                  Computing Services
> WWW: http://www.umr.edu/~nneul      SysAdmin: rollanet.org
> 
> 


-- 
Sameer Parekh					Voice:   510-986-8770
President					FAX:     510-986-8777
C2Net 		    C2Net is having a party: http://www.c2.net/party/
http://www.c2.net/				sameer@c2.net

Mime
View raw message