W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: OPTIONS *

From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:30:08 -0500 (EST)
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3c.org
Message-ID: <m3wu9ont5w.fsf@kathmandu.pingtel.com>



Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> writes:

> I think the wording in RFC 2616 is unclear about requiring
> that servers implement OPTIONS *. There's no explicit
> language to that effect, but it does say (9.2 para 4):
>
>    If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is
>    intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a specific
>    resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on
>    the resource, the "*" request is only useful as a "ping" or "no-op"
>    type of method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test
>    the capabilities of the server. For example, this can be used to test
>    a proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof).
>
> So there seems to be some assumption that HTTP/1.1 compliance
> has something to do with implementing OPTIONS (otherwise how
> could it be used as a test for HTTP/1.1 compliance?).

Regardless of whether or not you get an error (or even which one you
get), you still get the servers claimed HTTP version in the response
line. 

I'm not sure what more that paragraph needs to say, or what's unclear
about it.

-- 
Scott Lawrence        
  http://skrb.org/scott/
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 16:27:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:25 GMT