W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 11:49:19 -0400
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-id: <B4ED5AA8-74D1-451A-B510-F482434AB94D@apple.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
I think for OPTIONS the client can omit all but the :method pseudo header.  In any case, I'm +1 on clarifying this in the spec, particularly for "OPTIONS *".

On Jul 24, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24 July 2014 08:14, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> IMHO it be more correct to say simply that :path may be omitted on
>> OPTIONS and represents a request for "*" asterisk-form? as opposed to a
>> 0-length :path field which represents the path-empty case.
> 
> That would permit a more correct reconstruction of the original 1.1 request.
> 
> I think that I need a second opinion before making such a change. What
> do others think?
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 15:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC