IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Fri, 04 September 2020 07:19 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 4C5C03A0F72 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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
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 wXYxibdENK3o for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:19:21 -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 6D94F3A0F52 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 00:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kE602-0007Fk-VS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:19:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:19:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kE602-0007Fk-VS@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 <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1kE601-0007Et-Ay for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:19:05 +0000
Received: from mail-il1-f170.google.com ([209.85.166.170]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <phluid61@gmail.com>) id 1kE5zz-0005YG-4O for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:19:05 +0000
Received: by mail-il1-f170.google.com with SMTP id m1so5479718ilj.10 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
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=KdJnFZ1EQ1HO4ag1ChpudfapGkPaE0VrqKSWkxF5Qb8=; b=Da7IKrryZkPcfyB8cBu2F7s9ZLAkcEbljjT6zYtPNxqilIk1Jy6vYLAoVo5HfdFtiy PvpAtZdmaoGN2VrGaoGGPJ/nI4FljF++gzVJnbU4mfx6So5s6w6bbNmY0ot21Yzg5fel kaw9xP2xMU3q0rFKqQP/SFXeiysykodBiOB0IcMWNmMO+js0HtRCnrBtypGQBWfRrFtv GwQ6Fw9kKN5jMvs75kMrHy/EfPEb4jshbsbmqtKDkqT843Of7BZfWV+OtOPeoSPy1dE/ 9H4plLo3I7Y168fnLs1TXfW58fbVOw5f/TNCaDB89JqkJj24Kj24YICdKmYY3eKKIzq8 dmOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533RWbvHs+rTKIkgPGkGFFpIxUHJ5cfCFOX/vS0wcO9WpogRc/f5 vtVU2qe745ROGvuKtb8rWAfZtMNGa7MjTlXARGY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJpspcnwpesilujc3ATkPWvlUIIQhuUscntrz+2W82bgDRywfBAvweiSE8C/1qZwq/ok3HGusM+LjQPqIy41Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:60c:: with SMTP id t12mr6970241ils.47.1599203932132; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com>
In-Reply-To: <174578870d7.1265f983c12789.7350275676057542310@zoho.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:18:40 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAiD49558yvM71DWURh8q6H6zEhsQ0N-wRVvEGGrnQrUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
Cc: Ietf Http Wg <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004c58ad05ae77ae85"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.166.170; envelope-from=phluid61@gmail.com; helo=mail-il1-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kE5zz-0005YG-4O b6b80b924103684e1529e89ae5f2d024
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is HTTP/1.0 still relevant?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACweHNAiD49558yvM71DWURh8q6H6zEhsQ0N-wRVvEGGrnQrUg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38004
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, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:19 PM Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi, I'm greenfield-coding a webserver, and wondering if I can just do away
> with back-compat with HTTP/1.0. My concern is it's still alive and kicking
> on intermediaries. Is there any empirical data on this? Opinions also
> appreciated.
>
> -Eric
>

In BOFH land we have monitors that still use HTTP/0.9 requests for
heartbeat status checks. If the response isn't exactly the two bytes 0x55
0x50 ("UP") it yanks the server from the load-balancing pool.

So, something to consider.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email