- From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:25:03 -0400
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>>>>> "JM" == Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> writes:
JM> How about this syntax:
JM> Non-Compliance = "Non-Compliance" ":" 1#non-compliance-option
JM> proxy-host = host [ ":" port ]
JM> non-compliance-option = compliance-option "@" proxy-host
JM> This just adds the hostname to each unsupported option listed in the
JM> received Compliance header, so we can use a simple comma-separated list
JM> of items.
Looks fine.
JM> Anyone have strong feelings about 3a vs. 3b?
Where
(3a) ~= Proxies MUST NOT modify Allow or Public headers
(3b) ~= Proxies MUST modify both Allow and Public headers to
reflect what is possible through this proxy.
Either is better than treating the two headers differently, but I
strongly prefer 3a; I believe that alternative, combined with the
information in Compliance and Non-Compliance headers, will provide a
useful set of information to someone trying to debug why a given
request is not working, and use fewer requests to get what they
need.
--
Scott Lawrence EmWeb Embedded Server <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc. Engineering http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 07:35:59 UTC