httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koen Holtman <>
Subject Re: Bala's papers on HTTP/1.1 compliance (fwd)
Date Mon, 08 May 2000 17:31:13 GMT

One data point: I read the paper soon after it came out. 
I went over my notes and there is nothing really alarming in there

On the other hand, there are ways in which Apache can help users in being
more 1.1 compliant.  One thing I found in my old (early 1999) notes:
     Apache currently does not do anything special with
     ETag headers returned by CGI scripts, even if the scripts are
     invoked without content negotiation.  This means that if a
     dynamic content CGI scripts wants to be cache-friendly to 1.1
     caches, it will have to do its own If-Match and If-None-Match
     processing.  This is a pain, it should be done by Apache in
     ap_meets_conditions.  Fixing it is straightforward but it is
     also a CGI interface change.

I also seem to recall that if mod_expires is enabled, Expires: <date in
future> will be added even to some 'dynamic' responses (produced by other
modules) that should really be uncacheable as far as the other module is
concerned. This is less of a 1.1 compliance issue as it is one in which a
certain configuration setting has compliant but unintentional side

There is probably more stuff like this.  The thought of it keeps nagging
me, but I find that I never have the spare time to start doing something
about it. 


On Sun, 7 May 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> This may have been covered when it came out, I'm not sure, but if anyone
> wants to take a look....
> 	Brian
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 18:51:09 -0700
> From: Larry Masinter <>
> To: Brian Behlendorf <>
> Cc: Balachander Krishnamurthy <>
> Subject: Bala's papers on HTTP/1.1 compliance
> Brian,
> We were talking about what Apache could do to help users with HTTP/1.1
> compliance.
> You were interested in the work I described, done by Bala Krishnamurthy and
> friends,
> to measure HTTP/1.1 compliance.
> You might look at and, in
> particular,
> (paper on HTTP/1.1
> compliance).
> Apparently some of the non-compliance came from user configuration, CGI or
> whatever.
> Larry
> --

View raw message