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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:26:14 -0400
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <47A35140-DB3B-41D0-A4DF-2ECCB7047DCE@mnot.net>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Er, :authority?

On 24 Jul 2014, at 11:49 am, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:26:50 UTC

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