mandatory / extensions / options
From: Josh Cohen (joshco@microsoft.com)
Date: Mon, Mar 23 1998
Message-ID: <8B57882C41A0D1118F7100805F9F68B5CB8B41@red-msg-45.dns.microsoft.com>
From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
To: "'ietf-http-ext@w3.org'" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:30:37 -0800
Subject: mandatory / extensions / options
I dont see it as a problem to move forward with mandatory last call.
I do think we need to have a set of requirements or goals for
what we expect for extensions mechs for HTTP.
Some issues have come up:
(when I say options i dont mean OPTIONS, I just mean
"options", the discovery mechanism may be OPTIONS, mandatory, or other)
1) the need for per resource options
I think we agree that we need this
2) the need for server level (resource independent options)
This is an area of contention. I beleive that we need this,
but there is not consensus.
Maybe we need to separate per-resource, (higher level) options
from server (lower level options )
high level:
(which could be answered by the resource)
Methods allowed ( GET,POST, etc)
low level:
(answered by 'core' server )
chunking
"do you support proxying?"
"do you understand full URIs"
(currently, apache is 1.1, but does not accept full URLS)