Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?

Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 05:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC413A0EBC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 22:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (768-bit key) header.from=mellowmutt@zoho.com header.d=zoho.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zoho.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2UtDzJaGlu9Q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 22:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F2583A0EC1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 22:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE42V-0005OI-VP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:13:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:13:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE42V-0005OI-VP@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1kE42T-0005NR-I0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:13:29 +0000
Received: from sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com ([136.143.188.93]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1kE42S-0001Co-3x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 05:13:29 +0000
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1599196394; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=kOS3sxZ7s6Fss1JFbtquUDp+knX3dTLMGxOsyFwFffhJbQLf7CJdVmz9TAltEyy0lAKjiz/9wmGFb3IJA435VhQlq3VGcQ5QipW+3gjo2Z5PGlAel8ygb/6qc2y1+v+/xqUGPWLJ6yw4sHZnfKRrFBjYwOHy2kerBkybylJDoiY=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1599196394; h=Content-Type:Date:From:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=SwzDY70FWzP+0Z5E12+90bEjYfHt2u/qCuK+WLyYyFk=; b=j36+G9LJZ+pLlAtJLPFsLHq4btvMYXIOt7E8F0015ybTwTf2vyQlNsASF8y5jo5mKM6Qj85uXdIa9ZyIcNL2QDuiTFfJqlXoxNL3BFRK8aJjRVWHgU4N2ERYCAQvZUZ8TX1xB33n2fwUTpAD9PH9QT3ik6g8Mp1RyoAmWSCP5lc=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=zoho.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mellowmutt@zoho.com; dmarc=pass header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com> header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; b=PHCB2FrJ+BNak5kobYqXfhzO/3hXSfkUcAF3unwrBV7a+vf2p6jdCIZw/sa4WFiHMn4DHuw20MBM flFR0i/NGVMG56ibQrI6R7x+v+hyO34RdP4y1kT6D9N/BFdQZ/cl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1599196394; s=zm2020; d=zoho.com; i=mellowmutt@zoho.com; h=Date:From:To:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=SwzDY70FWzP+0Z5E12+90bEjYfHt2u/qCuK+WLyYyFk=; b=HkK6Xn1rIVj+I8B63z8tdDl6+kN6N9v0dnawB+Uu7r8YjJoDdHPBnQFwJia78GQp 6PBZzVQPHgbOk/x0G5zesKg/8vz/qXfYUUAzJ0vk9huTzn24USDPGFW7dd7+WsGIdfU vRkvpy0okAMsqoxyTGuS6jcDBAPxWN1jf3Kxgxbc=
Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1599196393716125.9868920947755; Thu, 3 Sep 2020 22:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [65.117.211.248] by mail.zoho.com with HTTP;Thu, 3 Sep 2020 22:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 22:13:13 -0700
From: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
To: "Ietf Http Wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com>
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_34795_772383794.1599196393687"
Importance: Medium
User-Agent: Zoho Mail
X-Mailer: Zoho Mail
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.93; envelope-from=mellowmutt@zoho.com; helo=sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kE42S-0001Co-3x b913c99d94db7e93719b2e571ada18fe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37998
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi, I'm greenfield-coding a webserver, and wondering if I can just do away with back-compat with HTTP/1.0. My concern is it's still alive and kicking on intermediaries. Is there any empirical data on this? Opinions also appreciated.



-Eric