Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

> There's no point in crudding up the protocol to add workarounds
> for broken implementations, and certainly it seems like a bad
> idea to test dynamically for something that will happen (usually)
> only once in the lifetime of the software version (namely,
> the upgrade of a 1.0 proxy to 1.1).
I certainly agree that we shouldnt impose a handshake 
in every transaction, but I do beleive that there is a valid
need for an OPTIONS method.
I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options
or parameters instead of object attributes or languages.

It would be useful to ask an entity ( a proxy or server ),
the first time you talk to it or discover it:

<do you comply with> <rfc2109>
<do you support the optional feature called> <set-proxy>

> Larry
> -- 

Josh Cohen				        Netscape Communications Corp.
Netscape Fire Department	               	       #include<disclaimer.h>
Server Engineering             

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 1997 23:51:27 UTC