Re: p1: Receiving a higher minor HTTP version number

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 20 April 2013 06:47 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 F22C521F8CD4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Y5HMOPO7hJFd for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7266521F8952 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTRaN-0005z0-GS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:47:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:47:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTRaN-0005z0-GS@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTRaK-0005xb-Sa for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:47:44 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTRaJ-0001WG-NC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:47:44 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r3K6lLZW028548; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:47:21 +0200
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:47:21 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130420064721.GE26517@1wt.eu>
References: <F6462D1C-A086-42A1-9812-1B99E2E5775D@mnot.net> <20130420062904.GD26517@1wt.eu> <F1F0559C-B237-499C-96D9-32B9DDF8B1CF@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F1F0559C-B237-499C-96D9-32B9DDF8B1CF@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.708, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.702, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UTRaJ-0001WG-NC 73eb64d29e5ff137c8b4592e33238f7b
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/20130420064721.GE26517@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17386
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 Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 04:30:17PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> 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.

Maybe at least what we should (IMO) say is that if an implementation receives
a message in a minor version it does not support, it should apply the
semantics of its own version and respond with its own (and probably refrain
from using persistent connections). This would give guidelines to people who
just implement 1.0 in simple scripts (though it's unlikely that these people
read RFCs anyway).

Willy