Re: 505 response a MUST?
Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:21:02 PST
I'll go for MUST 505. Any counter-opinions?
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: jg@w3.org <jg@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: 505 response a MUST?
>
> Another issue found while trying to document supported features
> (there appears to be some value to this rather tedious exercise :)
>
> draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-01 defines:
>
> 10.5.6 505 HTTP Version Not Supported
>
> The server does not support, or refuses to support, the HTTP =
protocol
> version that was used in the request message. The server is =
indicating
> that it is unable or unwilling to complete the request using the =
same
> major version as the client, as described in section 3.1, other =
than
> with this error message. The response SHOULD contain an entity
> describing why that version is not supported and what other =
protocols
> are supported by that server.
>
> ... and section 3.1 spells out various rules about version number
> usage, but does not specify that a server MUST send a 505 response
> if it receives a major version number higher than the highest
> version it implements.
>
> I've tried a few of the servers out there, and they all return
> success when I send HTTP/2.0 requests (which were 1.1 requests with
> 2.0 labels).
>
>--
>Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server =
<lawrence@agranat.com>
>Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering =
http://www.agranat.com/
>
>