- 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