Re: HTTP/1.1 & Proxies
Josh Cohen (josh@netscape.com)
Tue, 1 Jul 1997 23:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
> There's no point in crudding up the protocol to add workarounds
> for broken implementations, and certainly it seems like a bad
> idea to test dynamically for something that will happen (usually)
> only once in the lifetime of the software version (namely,
> the upgrade of a 1.0 proxy to 1.1).
>
I certainly agree that we shouldnt impose a handshake
in every transaction, but I do beleive that there is a valid
need for an OPTIONS method.
I see it in a similar light as TCN, except for communications options
or parameters instead of object attributes or languages.
It would be useful to ask an entity ( a proxy or server ),
the first time you talk to it or discover it:
<do you comply with> <rfc2109>
or
<do you support the optional feature called> <set-proxy>
> Larry
> --
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Cohen Netscape Communications Corp.
Netscape Fire Department #include<disclaimer.h>
Server Engineering
josh@netscape.com http://home.netscape.com/people/josh/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------