W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2000

Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1

From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM <kugler@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:31:51 -0600
To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <OF1068EA5B.839B687F-ON87256974.005AB810@LocalDomain>

Sure, an open-source testbed could be easily extended to perform lots of
additional testing.


John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>@localhost.localdomain on 10/10/2000
09:35:32 AM

Sent by:  francis@localhost.localdomain

To:   http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Subject:  Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1

Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM wrote:

> MAYs are untestable, by definition  Since MAY is semantically equivalent
> MAY NOT, there is no way to test the hypothesis that an implementation
> conforms to the statement.
> SHOULDs are also untestable by definition, since an application is

But it can be useful to know which choices your server makes.  For example,
have an HTTP client application that requires Digest-Authentication, then,
far as I'm concerned, that MAY becomes a MUST.

(I make no comment on whether the IETF should get involved.  :-)

|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"You're nothing but a pack of ringleaders!"  |
|francis@ecal.com|--_Wyrd Sisters_, Terry Pratchett            |
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 17:44:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:24 UTC