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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:36:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC5A40E.4070500@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Picking up an old thread:

On 24.07.2010 11:45, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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."

Proposed patch: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/203/i203.diff>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 15:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:30 GMT