W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: poe

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 14:03:08 -0800
Message-Id: <37225b52eda44323f48559e1ad81a78f@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>

I like the general approach; the language needs a little adjustment 
(the last sentence could be read in the wrong way); but I think the 
sentiment is "just because you don't get a POE-Links back on an 
OPTIONS, don't assume it isn't a POE resource," which seems right (if 
unfortunate -- it would be really nice to be able to ask a resource and 
get a definitive answer!).


On Apr 1, 2005, at 3:56 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:

> How about this:
> POE-Links in OPTIONS responses
> Resources MAY return the POE-Links header in OPTIONS responses. POE 
> resources SHOULD announce their poe-ness by sending
> POE-Links: .
> in response to OPTIONS requests. If no POE-Links header is seen in an 
> options response, a client MUST NOT deduce anything about the poe-ness 
> of the resource.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 22:03:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC