IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

RE: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for

Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:07:14 -0700

You're right, a non-transparent proxy could reject an unknown method.
However the point was that sending methods not specified in the HTTP spec is
not a protocol violation.

Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Kristol [mailto:dmk@bell-labs.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 1:17 PM
> To: Yaron Goland
> Cc: 'http-wg'; 'ipp@pwg.org'
> Subject: Re: IPP> RE: Implications of introducing new scheme and port
> for existing HTTP servers
>
>
> Yaron Goland wrote:
> >
> > Rob clarified in personal e-mail that he meant the latest
> rev of the HTTP
> > draft.
> >
> > One of the innovations of HTTP in respect to many other
> protocols is that
> > you do not need to modify the HTTP standard in order to add
> new methods for
> > use with HTTP. Rather HTTP defines exactly how one is to
> act if one receives
> > an unknown method. Thus one can safely add new methods and
> know that at the
> > worst one will simply receive a method unknown error from
> servers/firewalls
> > and be tunneled by proxies.
>
> How can one "know that at the worst one will ... be tunneled by
> proxies"? I can't find anything in the HTTP/1.1 spec. that instructs
> proxies to tunnel unknown methods. I think at worst the
> request will be
> rejected.
>
> Dave Kristol
>