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

Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:49:51 PDT
Message-Id: <33BA081F.6538@parc.xerox.com>
To: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.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>
We may well want to define what OPTIONS is actually good for
(since otherwise, we might as well take it out), but for the
particular issue at hand, which is 'finding broken HTTP/1.0'
servers, it's not clear OPTIONS will do a lot of good.

Unless we really hustle, it will be hard to add
<do you comply with> <rfc2109>
without leaving out some perfectly reasonable HTTP/1.1
proxies that just didn't get to this new OPTIONS feature.

And, of course, it won't be RFC 2109 any more.

> I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options
> or parameters instead of object attributes or languages.

I'm confused about what OPTIONS gives you that PEP doesn't
do more broadly. Or is it that you don't think we need
PEP but OPTIONS is OK?

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 1997 00:51:40 EDT

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