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 -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 13:41:51 UTC