Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 04 September 2020 09:14 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 8FFB33A1191 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JgFz_iu9dfZg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:14:01 -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 EA9DA3A118E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE7mq-0001C2-Fh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:13:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:13:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE7mq-0001C2-Fh@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 <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kE7mp-0001BB-D0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:13:35 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kE7mn-0000Ma-Rv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:13:35 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 0849DK8G002990; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:13:20 +0200
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:13:20 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>, Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20200904091320.GJ2905@1wt.eu>
References: <174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com> <20200904054051.GA2905@1wt.eu> <17457f2cfaa.b1c12efb13715.7081201094742751967@zoho.com> <13FF9481-ADFB-4006-A237-9CA795507C5B@greenbytes.de> <20200904082136.GC2905@1wt.eu> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009041059380.15806@tvnag.unkk.fr> <20200904090527.GI2905@1wt.eu> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009041106200.15806@tvnag.unkk.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009041106200.15806@tvnag.unkk.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kE7mn-0000Ma-Rv 536de84949a492bf4a1905534e176837
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200904091320.GJ2905@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38012
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>

On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 11:08:24AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> > >  - server then gives Content-Length: in response
> > 
> > They're lucky because it could perfectly just deliver the data and close!
> 
> Yes absolutely. And it somewhat puzzling to a client-oriented mind like mine
> that there are servers that opt to go chunked even though they apparently
> have the size ...

Maybe they actually go the hard way and buffer everything just to
count... I've already seen such horrors a long time ago.

Willy