W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

From: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "'w3c-http@w3.org'" <w3c-http@w3.org>, Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>, Joe Peterson <joepe@microsoft.com>, Hadi Partovi <hadip@microsoft.com>, Arthur Bierer <arthurbi@microsoft.com>, Richard Firth <rfirth@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.867825976.6502.josh@netscape.com>

> There's no point in crudding up the protocol to add workarounds
> for broken implementations, and certainly it seems like a bad
> idea to test dynamically for something that will happen (usually)
> only once in the lifetime of the software version (namely,
> the upgrade of a 1.0 proxy to 1.1).
> 
I certainly agree that we shouldnt impose a handshake 
in every transaction, but I do beleive that there is a valid
need for an OPTIONS method.
I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options
or parameters instead of object attributes or languages.

It would be useful to ask an entity ( a proxy or server ),
the first time you talk to it or discover it:

<do you comply with> <rfc2109>
or
<do you support the optional feature called> <set-proxy>


> Larry
> -- 
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
> 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Cohen				        Netscape Communications Corp.
Netscape Fire Department	               	       #include<disclaimer.h>
Server Engineering
josh@netscape.com                       http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 1997 23:51:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:45 EDT