Re: OPTIONS issues from Koen

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (frystyk@w3.org)
Date: Wed, Mar 11 1998


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980311173541.03404710@localhost>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:35:41 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: "ietf-http-ext (E-mail)" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OPTIONS issues from Koen 

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