W3C   HTTP | Forum

HTTP/1.1 Feature List Report Summary

These are the results from the HTTP/1.1 Feature List Reports that have been submitted to the IETF HTTP/1.1 editor's group. Testing of HTTP/1.1 is not yet complete, though most features have been tested to levels required by IETF process for Draft standard.

If you are an implementor of the HTTP/1.1 specification and have not yet filled out the feature list report then do so now!  Please resubmit the report as your implementations progress.

There are further reports expected not yet recorded here.

Also available is a rollup of all available data by clients, servers, and by proxies.  (Remember that proxies are both clients and servers, and that some server implementations are also B proxies; the requirements in HTTP/1.1 differ in each case).

@(#) $Id: Overview.html,v 1.46 1998/07/21 16:44:03 jg Exp $

Public Reports

 It is clear from looking at the data that some people have marked a feature "not implemented" when in fact, the feature did not apply to their implementation, and "n/a" may have been more appropriate.
Company / Organization  Reporting  Software type  Application Name 
(link to report) 
Application Version  Description
Aas Software  Gisle Aas  Client  libwww-perl NG-alpha-0.11  Perl HTTP library 
Ronald Tschalaer  Client  HTTPClient V0.4-dev  Client Library in Java
World Wide Web Consortium  Henrik Frystyk Nieslen  Other  libwww 5.1k  Client library in C, with various tools built on top.
Microsoft Corporation  Yaron Goland  Browser  Internet Explorer Full feature web browser
Netscape Communication Corporation  Gagan Saksena  Browser  Netscape Navagator and Communicator Full feature web browser and editor
Netscape Communication Corporation  Mike Belshe Server Netscape Enterprise Server 3.51 HTTP/1.1 Server
Apache Group  Roy Fielding  Server  Apache 1.3b6  HTTP/1.1 Server and incomplete caching proxy
Bell Labs  David Kristol  Server  DMKHTD 1.06f HTTP/1.1 Server 
Microsoft Corporation  Henry Sanders  Server  Microsoft IIS 4.0  HTTP/1.1 Server
Northwestern University 
(Math Department) 
John Franks  Server  WN 2.0.0 HTTP/1.1 Server 
(U.S. Department of Agriculture) 
Daniel Hellerstein  Server  SRE-http 1.3a  HTTP/1.1 Server
Applied Theory Communications Patrick McManus Server HASS 1.00d.a Application Server Suite
Microsoft Corporation  Lester Waters Proxy / Firewall / Caching Server Microsoft Proxy Server 2.0 HTTP/1.1 Caching Proxy server
MIT AI Lab  John Mallery  Combined Sever and Caching Proxy, includes client and Web Walker  CL-HTTP 67.47  HTTP/1.1 Server, Caching Proxy, Client and Web Walker application
World Wide Web Consortium  Yves Lafon  Combined Sever and Caching Proxy  Jigsaw 2.0beta  HTTP/1.1 Server and Proxy
Axent Technologies Robert Polansky Firewall Proxy Raptor Firewall 5.1 HTTP/1.1 firewall Proxy (no caching)
GiambiSoft Giambattista Bloisi Client GiambyNetGrabber 0.65 Internet Mirroring Tool
Digital Equipment Corporation  Steve Glassman  Proxy  Millicent Proxy 1.0  MilliCent microcommerce system, Server, Proxy and Gateway (reverse proxy)
Digital Equipment Corporation  Steve Glassman  Proxy  Millicent Proxy 1.0  MilliCent microcommerce system, Server, Proxy and Gateway (reverse proxy)
Digital Equipment Corporation  Steve Glassman  Proxy  Millicent Proxy 1.0  MilliCent microcommerce system, Server, Proxy and Gateway (reverse proxy)
The Millicent proxy has been implemented multiple times, by different people, in different languages (original prototype in Modula-3, product implementations in C++ and Java) and different physical locations.   It is a somewhat specialized proxy, implementing the Millicent Micropayment system (and uses standard HTTP facilities as part of its implementation).

Confidential Reports

 Some vendors prefer that their detailed reports remain confidential; the details are rolled up into the full report, but the detailed implementation information is not available publically.  Confidentiality is often due to reporting on software not yet available, or for other competitive reasons.  Our thanks for the data.
Company / Organization  Reporting  Software type  Application Name  Application Version  Description 
Agranat Systems  Scott Lawrence  Server  EmWeb  R3_04  HTTP/1.1 Server  
(for embedded use) 
StarNine Technologies, Inc.  Eric Zelenka  Server  WebSTAR  3.0  MacOS Web server 
Spyglass, Inc.  Steve Wingard  Server  Spyglass MicroServer  2.0  Small footprint HTTP/1.1 Server 
Sun Microsystems  Rob Clark  Server  Java Web Server  1.1.1  Full Featured HTTP/1.1 Server 
IBM  Richard Gray  Server and Proxy  IBM Web Traffic Express  1.1  Caching Proxy Server 
Inktomi Corporation  Dr. Brian Totty  Proxy server  Traffic Server  1.0  High-Performance Proxy Server 

Remaining Features to Test

According to IETF rules, we need 2 interoperable implementations of each feature.  We'll feel most comfortable if we can interpret this as two each of clients, servers and proxies, at least where the requirements on proxies differ from clients and servers.

We've not yet tried to figure out exactly for which features the requirements differ (many requirements on Proxies are also true for servers or clients), so the table here significantly overstates the actual amount of testing remaining required to progress the document to draft standard.

Proxies, of course, are the most challenging. There are other proxy implementations for which we do not yet have data, so we can hope testing is better than the data appears. Note that the Millicent proxies are specialized in nature, rather than general purpose caching proxies. Digest, as expected, is in by far the worst state, though implementation proceeds at a good pace.  New features to fix old bugs in 2068 are also still a bit of a problem.

We've not yet done extensive analysis on this data; e.g. some features just don't really apply to a given circumstance, and there is certainly errors in the data, from what I've seen.

Anyone who can help in testing those items remaining would be greatly appreciated.  From the following, the public testing reports and your own information, you should be able to figure out where your further testing efforts would be most helpful to the community. (e.g. the working group is short a tested implementation, you have implemented the feature, and by testing it against someone elses implementation, you can at least report your implementation tested, and possibly the other implementation as well).  By looking at the public reports, you will often be able to find someone who may have implementations you can test against.

Features particularly needing implementation and testing:

See the following list for exact details of features needing testing.

Remaining Features needing testing as of July 21, 1998.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Jim Gettys

@(#) $Id: Overview.html,v 1.46 1998/07/21 16:44:03 jg Exp $