Interoperability for servers that send HTTP/1.0 101 BLAH

[annevk]

Apparently Chrome accepts HTTP/1.0 and Firefox as per https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1767376 rejects. It would be good if the standard said something about this and this was tested.

Perhaps the HTTP WG would also like to know this happens in the wild.

cc @KershawChang @mnot

[ricea]

I would rather make Chrome stricter, but I guess that means gathering some statistics to try to verify if it's web-safe.

Amazing that RFC6455 doesn't specify this.

[mnot]

Http 1.1 features are not necessarily prohibited from use in 1.0; see eg cache-control.

…

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 May 2022, at 9:43 am, Adam Rice ***@***.***> wrote:  I would rather make Chrome stricter, but I guess that means gathering some statistics to try to verify if it's web-safe. Amazing that RFC6455 doesn't specify this. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[ricea]

Okay, RFC2616 says

   An application that sends a request or response message that includes
   HTTP-Version of "HTTP/1.1" MUST be at least conditionally compliant
   with this specification. Applications that are at least conditionally
   compliant with this specification SHOULD use an HTTP-Version of
   "HTTP/1.1" in their messages, and MUST do so for any message that is
   not compatible with HTTP/1.0. For more details on when to send
   specific HTTP-Version values, see [RFC 2145](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2145) [[36](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616#ref-36)].

but I think the general slant of that document is that we should be liberal in what we accept, so

HTTP/1.324324 101 BLAH

would also be acceptable.