W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-ext@w3.org > January to March 1998

options revisited

From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 01:49:36 -0800
Message-ID: <8B57882C41A0D1118F7100805F9F68B5078582@red-msg-45.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'ietf-http-ext@w3.org'" <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
I had gotten some comments from koen in the
past on the OPTIONS drafts and Ive been going
through them as well as solicitiing other
comments on how to move an OPTIONS mechanism forward.

Ill be including more comments from koen tomorrow,
but Id love to see other comments as well..

ISSUES with OPTIONS

1) [koen] Multi-node, distributed, or modular servers and proxies may
have different compliance levels depending on the individual modules.
So, if a CGI script is forked off by a server as an isolated program,
the server cant vounch for its compliance.

resolution:
 If a client asks for a server wide compliance declaration, the
server may respond on behalf of the entire server.  HOWEVER, if the
server forks off a CGI script or a module, for which it cannot vouch
for compliance to a previously declared compliance declaration, it must
indicate that.   It should indicate this by using the non-compliance
header with the 'exception' indicator.



---
Josh Cohen <josh@microsoft.com>
Program Manager IE - Networking Protocols 
Received on Friday, 27 February 1998 04:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 15:49:07 UTC