W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Resolve issue 98?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:40:07 +1000
Cc: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2F6BD63B-4921-469A-83B1-91F654169DB1@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I agree that the original sentence:
> A server that does not support such an extension MAY discard the  
> request body.
was nonsense, but it would be helpful to spell out what a server  
should do if it doesn't support such an extension.

E.g.,

"""An origin server (or proxy server, if Max-Forwards is 0) that does  
not support such an extension SHOULD respond with 415 Unsupported  
Media Type."""

Although, given the sentence we're talking about taking out, this may  
be closer to the original intent:

"""An origin server (or proxy server, if Max-Forwards is 0) that does  
not support such an extension MAY ignore the request body."""


On 31/05/2008, at 1:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to resolve issue 98 (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/98 
> >, "OPTIONS request body) soon.
>
> The proposed change (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/98/i98.diff 
> >) follows Roy's advice that the sentence in question ("A server  
> that does not support such an extension MAY discard the request  
> body.") is just nonsense, and thus should be removed.
>
> BR, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 2 June 2008 04:40:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT