<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/27/2013 05:08 PM, Ian Young
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BCED80F0-BADE-4524-8C7C-8F6B127175C8@iay.org.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On 26 Sep 2013, at 19:34, "Cantor, Scott" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu"><cantor.2@osu.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 9/26/13 2:14 PM, "Ian Young" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ian@iay.org.uk"><ian@iay.org.uk></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On re-reading this, it strikes me that this may be trickier than it first
appears. Is anyone here familiar enough with the http2 draft to know
whether it provides all of what we're requiring? As an example, if http2
didn't allow for ETag then saying that you could use a later version of
HTTP would be contradicted given that we require that facility.
I guess if no-one knows, I should try and skim that spec and get an
impression.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm not sure that the value warrants the time spent, we can always
evaluate and update the wording once HTTP 2.0 is real and relevant.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think that's reasonable. I did do a little more investigation anyway, because I was curious. I found that there is some standard guidance on this stuff provided in RFC 2616 section 3.1 ("HTTP Version") and elaborated in RFC 2145 ("Use and Interpretation of HTTP Version Numbers"), which is referenced by RFC 2616:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2145">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2145</a>
However, I also read enough of the HTTP/2.0 draft to know that you start HTTP/2.0 not by sending your version as HTTP/2.0 but by sending HTTP/1.1 and including an Upgrade header (which is also defined in HTTP/1.1). So HTTP/2.0 is NOT intended as a linearly upgradeable protocol but a step change, and it may or may not be compatible with the rest of what we've specified when it finally hits the streets. We obviously can't reference that work in progress, though.
Having read all this, I think I'd like to replace this current text:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Metadata retrieval protocol responders MUST use <xref target="RFC2616">HTTP, version 1.1</xref>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
with something like this for now:
-----
Requests from clients MUST NOT use an HTTP version prior to version 1.1. Responders MUST reply to such requests using status code 505, "HTTP Version Not Supported".
Protocol responders MUST support requests using HTTP version 1.1, and MAY support later versions.
-----
Comments?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BCED80F0-BADE-4524-8C7C-8F6B127175C8@iay.org.uk"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
-- Ian
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
mdx mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mdx@lists.iay.org.uk">mdx@lists.iay.org.uk</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.iay.org.uk/listinfo.cgi/mdx-iay.org.uk">http://lists.iay.org.uk/listinfo.cgi/mdx-iay.org.uk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>