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.

     -Carl


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
cc:
Subject:  Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1



Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM wrote:

> MAYs are untestable, by definition  Since MAY is semantically equivalent
to
> 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
allowed

But it can be useful to know which choices your server makes.  For example,
if
I
have an HTTP client application that requires Digest-Authentication, then,
as
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:40 EDT