- From: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM <kugler@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:31:51 -0600
- To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Sure, an open-source testbed could be easily extended to perform lots of additional testing. -Carl John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>@localhost.localdomain on 10/10/2000 09:35:32 AM Sent by: francis@localhost.localdomain To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com cc: Subject: Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1 Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM wrote: > MAYs are untestable, by definition Since MAY is semantically equivalent to > MAY NOT, there is no way to test the hypothesis that an implementation > conforms to the statement. > > SHOULDs are also untestable by definition, since an application is allowed But it can be useful to know which choices your server makes. For example, if I have an HTTP client application that requires Digest-Authentication, then, as far as I'm concerned, that MAY becomes a MUST. (I make no comment on whether the IETF should get involved. :-) -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |"You're nothing but a pack of ringleaders!" | |francis@ecal.com|--_Wyrd Sisters_, Terry Pratchett | \==============================================================/
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 09:47:24 UTC