Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111215
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
References: <e827814f-8a4e-4388-bc82-47c244aad978@gmail.com>
 <9d28ade6-1a70-9850-3bc0-64050c0dcbe4@gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVrajMYWoV9ce6xndsXKszTseP2UJcK_6VN0e_hGDa6SYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKq3X+jV3r9dMFOu_FynpZCjj7j2Bqk7SvAH4mb7uQdfZg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <0de0210b-ae9e-d0ce-05a0-56e858bde204@telia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:15:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKq3X+jV3r9dMFOu_FynpZCjj7j2Bqk7SvAH4mb7uQdfZg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: HTTP/1.1 by default in PHP 8.0
From: bjorn.x.larsson@telia.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Bj=c3=b6rn_Larsson?=)

Hi Rowan,

Den 2020-07-28 kl. 10:52, skrev Rowan Tommins:

> Hi Sara,
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 00:24, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
>> Given that it's a very small change, the RFC is probably not necessary, in
>> which case it's not too late, however I'd like some clarification about
>> what this actually offers over defaulting to 1.0.
>>
>
> That's a very reasonable question. The way I see it is this:
>
> The risk of advertising 1.0 by default is that some software will have been
> programmed to outright refuse that protocol version. I don't know of any
> recent examples, but this bug report from 2007 was for a SOAP endpoint that
> returned 505 Version Not Supported: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43069
> Notably, Dmitry's patch for that bug made sure the protocol context option
> is honoured by ext/soap, but also specifically defaulted it to HTTP/1.1 as
> of PHP 5.3.
>
> The risk of advertising 1.1 by default is that some software will respond
> with a more complex response, and trigger some bug in our response parsing.
> This was previously the case with detecting "Transfer-Encoding: chunked"
> headers, for instance. By advertising 1.0, we may be benefitting from
> servers "downgrading" their response.
>
> In practice, a large amount of software appears to do neither, and simply
> replies with an HTTP/1.1 response to a HTTP/1.0 request. This is why I talk
> about "advertising" versions - in practice, the code is always acting as an
> HTTP/1.1 client, e.g. sending "Connection: Close", and listening for
> Transfer-Encoding, because it's increasingly rare for a server to actually
> honour the 1.0 spec.
>
> My main motivation for the change is that if someone was writing the
> feature today, I don't think it would occur to them to default to 1.0, and
> I think _new_ users would be less surprised at needing to opt into 1.0 than
> into 1.1.
>
> Regards,


I think there is also a consistency argument to make here. If the code
behaves like HTTP 1.1, I think it also should advertise it as such. So go
for it!

Regards //Björn L