httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <>
Subject Re: HTTP/1.1 header problem (fwd)
Date Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:50:13 GMT
> Nathan Neulinger liltingly intones:
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> If that's what the version header is supposed to mean, yes, it's a mistake.
> Trouble is, the version number is an advertisement of the sender's capability,
> not some kind of brain-damaged handshaking mechanism.
> The language in the HTTP/1.1 spec is the same language in the HTTP/1.0
> spec, a/k/a RFC 1945. Again AOL also admits blocking HTTP/0.9, again
> in violation of the spec. They want to force the Net to use *only*
> HTTP/1.0, until they decide it's OK to upgrade. That viewpoint is,
> frankly, a crock o' crap.
> chuck

Exactly. This is a perfect example of how interpreting the spec as AOL
has will slow deployment of enhanced technologies. They need to go about
their merry way with their 1.0 proxies and treat a 1.1 response as if
it is 1.0. By Apache identifying itself as a 1.1 server, it gives AOL
and others the ability to add functionality to their services in stages.
If they know they are talking to a 1.1 server, they know that they can
use the bits of their code that they have brought up to 1.1 protocol.

This seems pretty simple to me. Who is going to respond to this chap?

View raw message