- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:36:46 +0200
- 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 UTC