Just waiting on Martin to update the PR with the below text on authority. --Richard On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > 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 14:35:22 UTC