W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [#203] Max-forwards and extension methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:45:47 +0200
Message-ID: <4C4AB64B.4010706@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14.07.2010 07:29, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/203>
>
> --->8---
>   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-09.html#rfc.section.9.5:
>
> "The Max-Forwards header field MAY be ignored for all other methods defined by this specification and for any extension methods for which it is not explicitly referred to as part of that method definition."
>
> This seems to suggest that we should require extension method definitions to define the Max-Forwards behavior (affect on registry).
>
> Alternatively, remove this and clarify it's for OPTIONS and TRACE only.
> ---8<---
>
> Julian later comments in the issue that he doesn't think max-forwards will work for extension methods in practice. I think that's true, unless we clean up the requirements for max-forwards to say that intermediaries have to honour it for unrecognised methods.
>
> Since I don't think that's going to be widely supported (I just checked Squid2-HEAD quickly), I'd say we should probably do as he says and remove the implication that extension methods can use max-forwards reliably.
>
> Thoughts?

+1

This would change the last paragraph in 9.5 to:

"The Max-Forwards header field MAY be ignored for all other methods."

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 09:46:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT