Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 08:12 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 CC3653A10F2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 01:12:10 -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); domainkeys=pass (768-bit key) header.from=mellowmutt@zoho.com header.d=zoho.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zoho.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 ZnP3vg_8Lzxw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 01:12:09 -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 6DFF03A10F0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 01:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE6n9-0000vY-BC for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 08:09:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 08:09:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE6n9-0000vY-BC@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 <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1kE6n7-0000uk-Ot for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 08:09:49 +0000
Received: from sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com ([136.143.188.93]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1kE6n6-00072S-6k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 08:09:49 +0000
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1599206945; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=BCA9IQ3TCfI6lX12eYmDVaT5FXDZcwJ107Ce3sXSf1OIj8op3CRVeb5+mfhRZkwW2/MEsnktTrvkOQTExuACZ/8kNCKB8X1iSG9/cqyORxipreIvIzSC4ZxkUKwUXSccf2czbzJBl415rF4J1P62Xy30r3tTJBxAD+l9tkhKBYA=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1599206945; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=0hBE//rOym/QuB4/i6lfpcZV7ScE6VRWS2UUjKOSOHk=; b=kqc7z7Dvy+50uGKc5ECho8GAOQ+AUhwXAaTMLUHvBdoDciBCM+EB+sy1hMIVVyH1z7u/VRIVgi2MjHOi6Ltc4I1UeSxD8x9HYbW0ZG+V8QyhFQpMJtjkLBD9QdaLk2mCWo8oGzM/74D6A1qTItB0A+TKEC6dWiUa6vU8pIF3f2c=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=zoho.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mellowmutt@zoho.com; dmarc=pass header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com> header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; b=iRTt8n7efhhw0FXJumpDfeCnAkm0XYz8Qf53dYyASQfKtccI+fe/WUq5/HHLV8N3Q3DRrkx0/zZo lXFaKedrgO8wPU8Ax85xKnD55kEWlJ1u4yx9iTlGc8ckl9W9bHgr
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1599206945; s=zm2020; d=zoho.com; i=mellowmutt@zoho.com; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=0hBE//rOym/QuB4/i6lfpcZV7ScE6VRWS2UUjKOSOHk=; b=ICilFCUgQnB8Zrj58RGbltAndIo0g/YUIb8S512TlKPbjX113VwRmQ8sOUqaRgxM NHTGTE/uJVrmYtUc9EtVvkceb8o1l6RdjWWgRbLjpuFPJOB1o70LuSJ4GAjgWHFXfQo aaqH6YQuaJ0b7NtmARVnO4NQ4nmu+C5tANAY9zQ0=
Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1599206942836940.426178771104; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 01:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [65.117.211.248] by mail.zoho.com with HTTP;Fri, 4 Sep 2020 01:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 01:09:02 -0700
From: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
To: Sergey Ponomarev <stokito@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1745829685b.bdd42d2714204.904362901130418092@zoho.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADR0UcXRFt8NCLgF0ExhXR8bWnYv63rxQo-XxmnJuHmSjFU-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CADR0UcXRFt8NCLgF0ExhXR8bWnYv63rxQo-XxmnJuHmSjFU-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_39123_1395125340.1599206942811"
Importance: Medium
User-Agent: Zoho Mail
X-Mailer: Zoho Mail
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.93; envelope-from=mellowmutt@zoho.com; helo=sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, 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 1kE6n6-00072S-6k dd63391855a2e4650798744353b49108
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/1745829685b.bdd42d2714204.904362901130418092@zoho.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38007
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, 04 Sep 2020 00:40:26 -0700 Sergey Ponomarev <mailto:stokito@gmail.com> wrote ---- > > 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`. > My dev environment is actually Bodhi Linux, I put my httpd controller at /var/www/ :8080 though, lol... But, thanks, I'm not familiar with that httpd, so of course I'll give it a look. > > 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. > I don't understand "only". I get the gist of how this all works, I have been a Web developer since we called it Mosaic. Will the HTTP police bust me if I implement HTTP/0.9 or HTTP/2? ;) -Eric
- Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Eric J Bowman
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Daniel Stenberg
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Eric J Bowman
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Stefan Eissing
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Sergey Ponomarev
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Eric J Bowman
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Daniel Stenberg
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Daniel Stenberg
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Willy Tarreau
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Stefan Eissing
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Eric J Bowman
- Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant? Amos Jeffries