- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:35:41 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-ext (E-mail)" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
At 01:12 3/5/98 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote: A belated comment... >Consider an encrypted encapsulation option that allows a client >to wrap a request such that an intermediary can't see what resource >is being requested (remember WRAPPED?). If the requestor has to identify >the intended resource just to see if that option is supported, then >it defeats the purpose of hiding the later request. As the OPTIONS response can not say whether this goes for all resources or just a subset (this would again defeat the purpose) then the client is no better of than it was before it asked using the OPTIONS method. The only thing that would work would be for the client to actually use the encapsulation mechanism in a request and see whether the server barfed or not. The response to the encapsulated request which if supported by the server presumably also is encrypted could safely contain a set of URIs for which this extension is supported. >If we had a message body for OPTIONS, and that message body included >a query syntax specifying exactly what options we are looking for, then >it would be more useful. No, I'm not volunteering. Using RDF as a query language seems like a neat idea here. Henrik -- Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 1998 17:39:10 UTC