W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

RE: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for existing HTTP servers

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:07:14 -0700
Message-Id: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D0297141D@red-msg-59.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Dave Kristol' <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: 'http-wg' <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>, "'ipp@pwg.org'" <ipp@pwg.org>
You're right, a non-transparent proxy could reject an unknown method.
However the point was that sending methods not specified in the HTTP spec is
not a protocol violation.

				Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Kristol [mailto:dmk@bell-labs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 1:17 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: 'http-wg'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: Re: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port
> for existing HTTP servers
> 
> 
> Yaron Goland wrote:
> > 
> > Rob clarified in personal e-mail that he meant the latest 
> rev of the HTTP
> > draft.
> > 
> > One of the innovations of HTTP in respect to many other 
> protocols is that
> > you do not need to modify the HTTP standard in order to add 
> new methods for
> > use with HTTP. Rather HTTP defines exactly how one is to 
> act if one receives
> > an unknown method. Thus one can safely add new methods and 
> know that at the
> > worst one will simply receive a method unknown error from 
> servers/firewalls
> > and be tunneled by proxies.
> 
> How can one "know that at the worst one will ... be tunneled by
> proxies"?  I can't find anything in the HTTP/1.1 spec. that instructs
> proxies to tunnel unknown methods.  I think at worst the 
> request will be
> rejected.
> 
> Dave Kristol
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 1998 16:09:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:18 EDT