Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 19:11:35 -0400
From: coar@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject: Re: PR#378 (OPTIONS non-compliance)
To: New-HTTPd@apache.org, Coar@decus.org
Message-id: <97042619113588@decus.org>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

    I thought I remembered seeing something like this hashed out several
    weeks ago, but now I can't find it.  Maybe it was TRACE..

    Are we non-compliant with RFC2068 wrt OPTIONS?  Roy?

>  I'm wondering if the OPTIONS method of Apache is really
>  conforming to RFC2068...
>  Example:
>    PUT is configured via 'Script PUT /cgi-bin/put.cgi' and
>    the servers allows PUT to its documents (<Limit PUT>).
>    When I try the request "OPTIONS /cgi-bin/put.cgi" the reponse
>    contains "PUT" in the Allow-Header, but I cannot PUT to
>    *this* resource.
>    When I try a request like "OPTIONS /put_allowed_dir/index.html"
>    the response does not contain "PUT" as allowed, although I
>    can PUT something to this location.
>    When I try OPTIONS on a resource that is protected via some
>    means of authentication the response contains an authentication
>    challenge, although RFC2068 says that there should be no initiation

    #ken    :-/}