- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:59:30 -0700 (MST)
- To: Jim Gettys <Jim.Gettys@hp.com>
- Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Scott Lawrence'" <scott@skrb.org>, "'Larry Masinter'" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Are people happy with Lisa's suggested solution?
I would replace "test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 support (or lack thereof)"
with a more well-defined "test a proxy for OPTIONS method support (or
lack thereof)".
Alex.
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 20:25, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >
> > 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. For example, this
> > can be used to test a proxy for HTTP/1.1 support (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 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).
> > > > >
> > >
> > > What confuses people is probably that the text says "to test for
> > > compliance" rather than saying "to detect HTTP version". Since most
> > > HTTP/1.1 implementations are not HTTP/1.1 compliant but are using
> > > HTTP/1.1 version, the two statements are different.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2003 12:04:14 UTC