W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

[new issue] Re: Proxying OPTIONS *

From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:10:11 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1191453011.25254.126.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
On ons, 2007-10-03 at 23:49 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:

> " If a proxy receives a request without any path in the Request-URI and
>     the method specified is capable of supporting the asterisk form of
>     request, then the last proxy on the request chain MUST forward the
>     request with "*" as the final Request-URI. For example, the request
> 
>            OPTIONS http://www.ics.uci.edu:8001 HTTP/1.1
> 
>     would be forwarded by the proxy as
> 
>            OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
>            Host: www.ics.uci.edu:8001
> 
>     after connecting to port 8001 of host "www.ics.uci.edu"." -- 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-5.1.2>
> 
> Best regards, Julian

There is one slight problem with the above and it's " and the method
specified is capable of supporting the asterisk form of request". This
requires the proxy to know about each such method, and with HTTP being
extensible it's not fully possible. In RFC2616 only OPTIONS meets this
criteria.

Is there a possibility for other methods than OPTIONS which may make
sense on a global resource-less context? I think not. If this is
complemented with a restriction that the special request-URI "*" may
only be used in OPTIONS requests then it's fine. Interoperability of
extension methods using "*" will be tricky at best..

Please put this into the issues list, starting with julians response.
http://www.w3.org/mid/47040E65.9070001@gmx.de


Regards
Henrik

Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 23:10:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:22 GMT