Re: HTTP features w/ low 'implemented' and 'tested'

• From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
• Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 01:00:19 -0800
• To: "Life is hard... and then you die." <Ronald.Tschalaer@psi.ch>
• Cc: HTTP-WG@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9803290103.aa26365@paris.ics.uci.edu>

>Concerning the low implemented list:
>
>    H 10.1.2 101 Switching Protocols
>    H 14.42  Upgrade
>
>I'm not sure what there is to implement here... If any server does
>implement these, then what do they accept in the Upgrade header?

Personally, I find it incredibly shortsighted for the IETF not to
include a special exception for optional features intended to support
future protocol extensions and/or replacement.  I'd hate to have to
exclude good engineering practice just to call it a draft standard.

....Roy

Received on Sunday, 29 March 1998 01:10:39 UTC