- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:43:08 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now i83. <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i83> On 04/10/2007, at 9:10 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On ons, 2007-10-03 at 23:49 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> " If a proxy receives a request without any path in the Request- >> URI and >> the method specified is capable of supporting the asterisk >> form of >> request, then the last proxy on the request chain MUST forward >> the >> request with "*" as the final Request-URI. For example, the >> request >> >> OPTIONS http://www.ics.uci.edu:8001 HTTP/1.1 >> >> would be forwarded by the proxy as >> >> OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1 >> Host: www.ics.uci.edu:8001 >> >> after connecting to port 8001 of host "www.ics.uci.edu"." -- >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-5.1.2> >> >> Best regards, Julian > > There is one slight problem with the above and it's " and the method > specified is capable of supporting the asterisk form of request". This > requires the proxy to know about each such method, and with HTTP being > extensible it's not fully possible. In RFC2616 only OPTIONS meets this > criteria. > > Is there a possibility for other methods than OPTIONS which may make > sense on a global resource-less context? I think not. If this is > complemented with a restriction that the special request-URI "*" may > only be used in OPTIONS requests then it's fine. Interoperability of > extension methods using "*" will be tricky at best.. > > Please put this into the issues list, starting with julians response. > http://www.w3.org/mid/47040E65.9070001@gmx.de > > > Regards > Henrik -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 06:45:12 UTC