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

Re: draft-ieft-http-options-00.txt

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:56:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199708071956.VAA09570@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4110
Dave Kristol:
>I read through the I-D, thinking about how an origin server that
>supports cookies (i.e., RFC 2109) might respond to
>	Compliance: rfc=2109
>The problem is that (I believe) most of the support is not in the
>server itself, but in CGIs.  Consequently, the server software may not
>be able to answer authoritatively about whether RFC 2109 is supported,
>because that may depend on what each individual CGI does.
>What advice would the authors (or others) give?

I think that in this case, the server should respond with something
that says `I don't know whether I'm compliant with 2109'.  I have not
studied the draft closely yet, but I believe a server could say this
by sending an empty compliance header in the response.

>Dave Kristol

Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 12:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC