- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:05:53 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org>
Hi Richard, Was there anything else that we need to talk about before you release the DISCUSS? Cheers, > On 29 Jan 2015, at 5:03 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28 January 2015 at 00:24, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote: >> "The server MUST include a value in the ":authority" header field for which >> the server is authoritative (see Section 10.1). If a client receives a >> PUSH_PROMISE for a resource for which the server is not authoritative, it >> MUST respond with a stream error (Section 5.4.2) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR." >> >> (Or maybe STREAM_REFUSED? Since these requests should not be processed at >> all by the client.) > > WFM. (STREAM_REFUSED doesn't add value in this context: we don't need > to worry about retries, because retries are allowed anyway.) > > I'll keep my proposed MUST NOT; no harm in having extra coverage for > something important like this. > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 05:06:27 UTC