Re: 200 OK for an OPTIONS on a nonexistent URI?

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>]

In message <37...@Golux.Com>, Rodent of Unusual Size writes:
>I just noticed during some testing that 1.3.7-dev (at least all
>the way back to 1.3.5-dev) responds to an OPTIONS request for a
>nonexistent URI with "200 OK".
>
>Section 9.2 (OPTIONS) of draft 6 of the new HTTP/1.1 spec doesn't
>say anything in particular about whether this is appropriate; it
>just says that IF the response status is 200, then the response
>should include certain things.
>
>I'm inclined to think this should be returning a 404 Not Found for
>this..

The client might be trying to find out the options for a future PUT
request on that resource (that may not exist yet).  I wouldn't sweat
this one, at least not until something like mod_dav has a use for it.

....Roy

Re: 200 OK for an OPTIONS on a nonexistent URI?

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> >I'm inclined to think this should be returning a 404 Not Found for
> >this..
> 
> The client might be trying to find out the options for a future PUT
> request on that resource (that may not exist yet).  I wouldn't sweat
> this one, at least not until something like mod_dav has a use for it.

Curiously enough, it was during some DAV testing that I encountered
this.  Is a 404 correct/appropriate/inappropriate in this
situation?  It sounds as though the response code is entirely
up to the server's discretion..
-- 
#ken  P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>