Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?

Sergey Ponomarev <stokito@gmail.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 07:43 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 547E73A0938 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:43:28 -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); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 R3daiedNu8iL for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:43:26 -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 8323A3A0935 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE6LU-0002i2-GZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:41:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:41:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE6LU-0002i2-GZ@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 <stokito@gmail.com>) id 1kE6LT-0002gR-8x for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:41:15 +0000
Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stokito@gmail.com>) id 1kE6LR-00067i-O2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:41:14 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id a65so5084499otc.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J6I8QXggHcw5wgFgvnyhDPN3ozKQLvDkbeYWmukshEo=; b=qx05GTryfsZ0g4sOJ9CYdypgRORHfYRPsmqNTFKAps1xatoWvX1rODzShBQdIXt3CL rB650FKrUDLIt+PXnvGEbm4jyPAGznWH5MtkGUaGSq0UxSIOrCvGc7PRjjky1K0MwgSK Io9Xk38p5g4cBzDQOtvW2QMWhvNGg4d8CzXmVaP7nI76AWvi13r7Z6pOBUnSL19HL+7L zMJK3v4HDqYvEG64WkutTTrYhTPNPYBrKtdFYcO+OvF0CT5tyhhqlT3vjMwpWCHlYgzZ 0ZHQx0Z0gYvsHmSW4nv0soMjV5BlZssCOgSRu2LgL91cLmXKBYnkbNphbtmNvv3r2wNM p3wA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J6I8QXggHcw5wgFgvnyhDPN3ozKQLvDkbeYWmukshEo=; b=qSDPnWI7pVsNASrFmXDMxAdvoT8K3vu66YwmGrGzcWAH1uguu+FKTqc7iwWHTRixy7 Xj6LUTANpuxsXsaPN+ywWZ9qyqDSnCo1LcbuVQLPrRNYBm1tSb/DMSJOwY+vVPibis7C VqL5jAG74F+jmXPkTHsk7QZNJGqrSvvHSmkMUh20EA2RRw7vPslmuczpV2BB8rlPlpBL y4IUKUsV2F3QJBfd/VGX+E47UOGkQ/0SvMPpeRdM/DY2IXqVcBX3kNvn9NHmN4Tw8QtJ EhIEq7Isc5cgy7c8p2oyBXP1BfZ4umQcyH+1EGaduzlWsqnLZD2pA0QxSixlxoW5Wd5m Jt9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531rs89wKIBOQ+UNE0yz/x55OMdXAn6uKM3BWTD9GsOr1steLDVE B2pyKm8H31I2DBhuULMRYkcP8sgCX5PoBvz1vSI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIG4FhkNRFv38C0589AIAudx0xwExTfRWRN8ut8W0o71Xlv+PvVhkBMy2LjJXakmdFoAyVKdsiMZHjk2mDddE=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7f1a:: with SMTP id j26mr4324229otq.38.1599205262539; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com> <20200904054051.GA2905@1wt.eu> <17457f2cfaa.b1c12efb13715.7081201094742751967@zoho.com> <13FF9481-ADFB-4006-A237-9CA795507C5B@greenbytes.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009040918540.15806@tvnag.unkk.fr>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2009040918540.15806@tvnag.unkk.fr>
From: Sergey Ponomarev <stokito@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:40:26 +0300
Message-ID: <CADR0UcXRFt8NCLgF0ExhXR8bWnYv63rxQo-XxmnJuHmSjFU-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098c35b05ae77fd6c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d; envelope-from=stokito@gmail.com; helo=mail-ot1-x32d.google.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 1kE6LR-00067i-O2 5c9dee4cbb7cb8055aa3d2b164e3bb2b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CADR0UcXRFt8NCLgF0ExhXR8bWnYv63rxQo-XxmnJuHmSjFU-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38006
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>

JFYI: current version BysyBox httpd web server for embedded devices uses
HTTP/1.0. If you are using Ubuntu you can run it locally `busybox httpd -h
/var/www -p 8080`.
But in the next release it will be upgraded to HTTP/1.1.
Chrome doesn't send cache validation headers like If-Modified-Since and
If-None-Match if previously it received the page with old HTTP/1.0.

If you are just implementing a web server then you can only implement
HTTP/1.1. It was released in 1999 and all clients support it. Even if a
client receives a header that it doesn't know it will ignore it.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 10:24, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
> > Many existing OCSP clients in servers (*cough*), use HTTP/1.0 to staple
> > certificates. I have no data from the IoT devices of the world, but I
> would
> > suspect many of them will do as well.
>
> On "IoT devices", meaning things that are smaller than what can
> comfortably
> run Linux, "HTTP(S) clients" are often the RTOS vendor's 100 lines of C
> code
> without error checks full of dirty assumptions which can only be
> considered
> HTTP/1.0 at best...
>
> Luckily, such devices often use a specific subset of servers for
> particular
> purposes so most of those won't randomly go using servers "in the wild".
>
> --
>
>   / daniel.haxx.se
>
>

-- 
Sergey Ponomarev <https://linkedin.com/in/stokito>, skype:stokito