Re: OPTIONS issues from Koen

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (frystyk@w3.org)
Date: Thu, Mar 12 1998


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980312134836.00a20940@localhost>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:48:36 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OPTIONS issues from Koen 

At 16:25 3/11/98 -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>It wouldn't have to -- this particular use of OPTIONS is not resource
>dependent.  It is simply asking if the connection peer is capable of
>unwrapping before handling the underlying request.  For example, the
>response might include a public key for use in encrypting the later
>request such that only that peer can unwrap it.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between the two statements:
"I am capable of doing x" and "I will use x". The former is a hint, the
latter is what actually is agreed upon.

The classic example is news servers where on connection establishment you
get a message saying "this server supports POST", but this can at any time
be overruled by the posting policy on any of the news groups serviced by
the server.

I guess the question really is whether the server is seen as the
authoritative party that can act on behalf of the resources it exports, or
whether it just happens to be the most specific resolver for a particular
set of resources.

Henrik
--
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/People/Frystyk