Re: draft-ieft-http-options-00.txt
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:56:52 +0200 (MET DST)
Dave Kristol:
>
>I read through the I-D, thinking about how an origin server that
>supports cookies (i.e., RFC 2109) might respond to
>
> OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
> Compliance: rfc=2109
>
>The problem is that (I believe) most of the support is not in the
>server itself, but in CGIs. Consequently, the server software may not
>be able to answer authoritatively about whether RFC 2109 is supported,
>because that may depend on what each individual CGI does.
>
>What advice would the authors (or others) give?
I think that in this case, the server should respond with something
that says `I don't know whether I'm compliant with 2109'. I have not
studied the draft closely yet, but I believe a server could say this
by sending an empty compliance header in the response.
>Dave Kristol
Koen.