Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Fri, 04 September 2020 09:31 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 B12893A0C7F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1Ikkuc_S3vOX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:31:31 -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 7102C3A0C7E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE81q-0003H1-86 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:29:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:29:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE81q-0003H1-86@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1kE81o-0003GF-1o for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:29:04 +0000
Received: from mail2.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186] helo=mail.greenbytes.de) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1kE81m-0003F2-Ad for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 09:29:03 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 119) id 5D44F9860FE; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:28:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from icing.fritz.box (unknown [84.141.209.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C4ED983B95; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:28:48 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200904091320.GJ2905@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 11:28:47 +0200
Cc: Stenberg Daniel <daniel@haxx.se>, Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>, Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <31556AEF-B97E-4441-9175-07F90DD5C59B@greenbytes.de>
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> <20200904091320.GJ2905@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kE81m-0003F2-Ad e1005b6ea7b9367f954701d305a542ec
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/31556AEF-B97E-4441-9175-07F90DD5C59B@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38013
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>

I mean, to be honest, the Internet worked best at the time of HTTP/1.0. ;)

Stefan

> Am 04.09.2020 um 11:13 schrieb Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>eu>:
> 
> 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