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

Re: Another try at OPTIONS

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:25:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199707241425.KAA27804@devnix.agranat.com>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:49 EDT