W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Concerns with draft-04...

From: Robert S. Thau <rst@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 15:34:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199606061934.PAA12450@volterra.ai.mit.edu>
To: fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU, rst@ai.mit.edu
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/835
  > 1) Section 14.7 says that a proxy MUST NOT edit the Allow: header
  >    value.  Section 9.2 says that it MUST, at least in the specific
  >    case of a response to an OPTIONS request.  Who's right?

  Section 14.7.  OPTIONS does not say that a proxy may edit Allow, though
  I can see why you read that into it.

Well, the exact language from section 9.2 (defining OPTIONS) is as follows:

  A 200 response SHOULD include any header fields which indicate
  optional features... (e.g. Allow)....  If the OPTIONS request passes
  through a proxy, the proxy MUST edit the response to exclude those
  options known to be unavailable through that proxy.

That seemed pretty explicit to me, especially since a response to an
OPTIONS request MUST NOT include entity information (or, I presume, an
entity), which doesn't leave much else for the proxy to edit
(Public?).  At any rate, I take it we are agreed that the matter is in
need of clarification.

Received on Thursday, 6 June 1996 12:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC