Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
http-compliance · discussion about HTTP compliance testing and tests
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Test Cases / Plan for doing http compliance testing   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #35 of 117 |
Re: [http-compliance] Test Cases / Plan for doing http compliance testing


Here is a feature checklist: http://www.agranat.com:1998/

Also, see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/Reports/ for reports on
existing implementations.

-Carl







Mark
Nottingham To: http-compliance@yahoogroups.com
<mnot@... cc: gaya377@...
t> Subject: Re: [http-compliance] Test
Cases / Plan for doing http compliance
testing
08/10/2001
04:53 PM
Please
respond to
http-complian
ce








One of the 2616 authors used to have a checklist of requirements
sitting around... I think I have a reference, will have to dig
around.

Anyway, it was really handy.


On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 07:33:17AM -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 gaya377@... wrote:
>
> > I would like to know if there is a tabularised checklist kind of a
> > thing available anywhere, so that we can verify the http
> > compliance of a component against the list. Typically, what I am
> > looking for is a list of "MUST", "SHOULD" cases.
>
> Yes. RFC 2616 is, essentially, a list of MUST and SHOULD (and MAY)
> cases. A table would have to consist of pointers to RFC
> paragraphs/sections. Some products have product-specific to-do lists
> compiled from 2616. For example:
> http://squid.sourceforge.net/squidhttp1.1.htm
>
> Also, keep in mind that many (most?!) RFC cases are pretty much
> useless to test against by looking at the component code or even
> running isolated component tests. The difficulty of HTTP compliance
> testing is in interactions of the requirements (and the number of test
> cases).
>
> My company is working on an HTTP compliance test suite but free
> versions are not yet available.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> http-compliance-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>
>

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
http-compliance-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/









Mon Aug 13, 2001 4:45 pm

kugler@...
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #35 of 117 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Hi, I would like to know if there is a tabularised checklist kind of a thing available anywhere, so that we can verify the http compliance of a component...
gaya377@...
Send Email
Aug 10, 2001
9:14 am

... Yes. RFC 2616 is, essentially, a list of MUST and SHOULD (and MAY) cases. A table would have to consist of pointers to RFC paragraphs/sections. Some...
Alex Rousskov
rousskov@...
Send Email
Aug 10, 2001
1:33 pm

One of the 2616 authors used to have a checklist of requirements sitting around... I think I have a reference, will have to dig around. Anyway, it was really...
Mark Nottingham
mnot@...
Send Email
Aug 10, 2001
10:53 pm

Here is a feature checklist: http://www.agranat.com:1998/ Also, see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Forum/Reports/ for reports on existing implementations. ...
Carl Kugler
kugler@...
Send Email
Aug 13, 2001
4:46 pm

... This is a cool compilation! While the items are just "features" and many are not really testable protocol items, it is very handy indeed. The second URL...
Alex Rousskov
rousskov@...
Send Email
Aug 13, 2001
5:09 pm

Note that these reports are from around 1998, so the implementations might be more compliant now. -Carl Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-fa To:...
Carl Kugler
kugler@...
Send Email
Aug 13, 2001
6:21 pm

Actually, I was refering to the attached draft (just found it; got it from Ross about a year ago). Ross wanted to make sure it's understood it isn't official,...
Mark Nottingham
mnot@...
Send Email
Aug 16, 2001
1:11 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help