Re: HTTP/1.1

From: Alex Rousskov <>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:25:13 -0700

On 02/19/2009 03:49 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 02/18/2009 03:28 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>> I've been giving this a good look over recently. We appear to now
>>> have clients wanting to migrate from 2.7 to 3.1 and naturally need the
>>> same HTTP/1.1 support as in 2.7.
>>> One of the things I've tried to do was update Roberts old HTTP/1.1
>>> checklist to wiki (DONE:, and
>>> tick off more of the entries with current info from the testing Yahoo!
>>> did for us.
>>> That second, seems to largely be a washout though, as the requirements
>>> testing report shows each detailed pass/fail nicely, but does not
>>> reference them cleanly to the RFC section to tick off the checklist :(
>> FWIW, each test case links to the RFC 2616 paragraph(s) it checks (among
>> other things). It is possible that the report you were looking at lost
>> that information during transmission and summation. In any case, it
>> would require a non-trivial effort to reconcile the information from the
>> generated report and Robert's checklist.
> Aye thats exactly what I found, and yes the copy I /we got was pruned
> down a lot. I'm not too worried about the non-trivial mapping, as long
> as the section links are available to verify the mapping attempted was
> correct.
You can find all the test cases, cross-referenced with RFC 2616 at



>>> Is anyone available to:
>>> (a) go over the current checklist and assist with ticking entries off.
>>> (b) test 3.1 for its current status, and see what needs doing to make
>>> it at least on par with the server-side support in 2.7
>>> (c) test 3.1 for noticeable issues when 1.1 is turned on.
>>> Amos
> Amos
Received on Thu Feb 19 2009 - 15:25:14 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Feb 20 2009 - 12:00:03 MST