Re: draft-ieft-http-options-00.txt

Dave Kristol:
>
>I read through the I-D, thinking about how an origin server that
>supports cookies (i.e., RFC 2109) might respond to
>
>	OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
>	Compliance: rfc=2109
>
>The problem is that (I believe) most of the support is not in the
>server itself, but in CGIs.  Consequently, the server software may not
>be able to answer authoritatively about whether RFC 2109 is supported,
>because that may depend on what each individual CGI does.
>
>What advice would the authors (or others) give?

I think that in this case, the server should respond with something
that says `I don't know whether I'm compliant with 2109'.  I have not
studied the draft closely yet, but I believe a server could say this
by sending an empty compliance header in the response.

>Dave Kristol

Koen.

Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 12:58:14 UTC