RE: OPTIONS *

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jim Gettys wrote:

> Are people happy with Lisa's suggested solution?

I would replace "test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 support (or lack thereof)"
with a more well-defined "test a proxy for OPTIONS method support (or
lack thereof)".

Alex.

> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 20:25, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >
> >   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.  For example, this
> >   can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 support (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > >
> > > > >    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).
> > > > >
> > >
> > > What confuses people is probably that the text says "to test for
> > > compliance" rather than saying "to detect HTTP version". Since most
> > > HTTP/1.1 implementations are not HTTP/1.1 compliant but are using
> > > HTTP/1.1 version, the two statements are different.