Re: Moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

> And, on a separate note, I'll be taking the "Allow" header out of the 1.0
> doc since only one known server appears to emit it. Worse, that one server
> does it incorrectly (it always emits GET HEAD POST even for URIs where POST
> is not allowed...).

That means there's at least three, because I know of two (AWS and
AServe) that implement Allow and don't include POST where it is not
allowed.

I don't know of any CLIENTS that pay attention to the Allow header,
though, which would also imply that it should come out of the draft.

	<mike