W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2003


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:29:58 +0100
Message-ID: <3FC39FA6.5020302@gmx.de>
To: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <Jeff.Mogul@hp.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org

Scott Lawrence wrote:

 > ...
> I agree that the best that can be done now is to document what can and
> cannot be achieved with what we have (pretty limited, but it does make
> a good no-op message; we used it that way in RFC 2817).

Agreed. So I think what we want to replace is 

"If the Request-URI is an asterisk ("*"), the OPTIONS request is 
intended to apply to the server in general rather than to a specific 
resource. Since a server's communication options typically depend on the 
resource, the "*" request is only useful as a "ping" or "no-op" type of 
method; it does nothing beyond allowing the client to test the 
capabilities of the server. For example, this can be used to test a 
proxy for HTTP/1.1 compliance (or lack thereof)."

Any proposals for replacement text?


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 13:41:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:24 UTC