HTTP response version, again
Shel Kaphan (sjk@amazon.com)
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:47:15 -0800 (PST)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Previous message: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- In reply to: Shel Kaphan: "HTTP response version, again"
- Next in thread: Ted Hardie: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Ted Hardie: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Dave Kristol: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Dave Kristol: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Pixieo2@aol.com: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Steve Wingard: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Steve Wingard: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
Shel Kaphan writes:
> If we believe interpretation A above, then a HTTP 1.0 proxy anywhere
> between a HTTP 1.1 client and a HTTP 1.1 server would prevent the
> server from ever being able to pass any 1.1-only headers through the
> proxy to the client in either case (1) or (2). Furthermore this would
> require proxies to remove 1.1 headers when responding to 1.0 clients.
> So, this is pretty bad.
>
> If we believe interpretation A above, then, since 1.1 is supposed to
^
I meant "B" here.
> be backward compatible with 1.0, if headers defined in 1.1 are left
> uninterpreted (and this is the crux of the major/minor version
> scheme), then it is always OK to return a normal 1.1 response to a 1.0
> request. This seems to suggest it makes sense to return a 1.1 version
> number as well.
>
> --Shel
>
>
--Shel
- Next message: Brian Behlendorf: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Previous message: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- In reply to: Shel Kaphan: "HTTP response version, again"
- Next in thread: Ted Hardie: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Ted Hardie: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Dave Kristol: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Maybe reply: Daniel DuBois: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Dave Kristol: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Pixieo2@aol.com: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Steve Wingard: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Steve Wingard: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"
- Reply: Blake Winton: "Re: HTTP response version, again"