Re: p1: Receiving a higher minor HTTP version number

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 06:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 5B23F21F91C4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-S8BByJxawm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C9821F91BC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTRJx-00067p-B4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:30:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:30:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTRJx-00067p-B4@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTRJu-00066y-3N for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:30:46 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTRJt-0000iq-CW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:30:46 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E1A1509B8; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 02:30:20 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130420062904.GD26517@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:30:17 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F1F0559C-B237-499C-96D9-32B9DDF8B1CF@mnot.net>
References: <F6462D1C-A086-42A1-9812-1B99E2E5775D@mnot.net> <20130420062904.GD26517@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.298, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UTRJt-0000iq-CW 8df23d7d5038895e277f4da9139716bb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Receiving a higher minor HTTP version number
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F1F0559C-B237-499C-96D9-32B9DDF8B1CF@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17384
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 20/04/2013, at 4:29 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:17PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I don't see anything in p1 2.6 Protocol Versioning that explicitly says an
>> implementation ought to accept a message that has the same major version
>> number it implements, but a higher minor version number.
>> 
>> I think we need to spell this out, because IME some servers do error out on
>> (for example) a HTTP/1.2 request.
> 
> Makes sense but I'm not sure that these implementations will change for
> this these days anyway, with 2.0 coming. Also we have seen with the
> 1.0->1.1 transition that the minor change was not that seemless (specifically
> due to persistent conns).


Yeah, if this is uncontroversial, I can see adding a sentence or two (maybe with a requirement); if not, it's probably not worth the time.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/