W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 00:49:51 PDT
Message-Id: <33BA081F.6538@parc.xerox.com>
To: Josh Cohen <josh@netscape.com>
Cc: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, "'w3c-http@w3.org'" <w3c-http@w3.org>, Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>, Joe Peterson <joepe@microsoft.com>, Hadi Partovi <hadip@microsoft.com>, Arthur Bierer <arthurbi@microsoft.com>, Richard Firth <rfirth@microsoft.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3612
We may well want to define what OPTIONS is actually good for
(since otherwise, we might as well take it out), but for the
particular issue at hand, which is 'finding broken HTTP/1.0'
servers, it's not clear OPTIONS will do a lot of good.

Unless we really hustle, it will be hard to add
<do you comply with> <rfc2109>
without leaving out some perfectly reasonable HTTP/1.1
proxies that just didn't get to this new OPTIONS feature.

And, of course, it won't be RFC 2109 any more.

> I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options
> or parameters instead of object attributes or languages.

I'm confused about what OPTIONS gives you that PEP doesn't
do more broadly. Or is it that you don't think we need

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 1997 00:51:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:02 UTC