- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:26:01 -0400
- To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We already say “The asterisk-form of request-target is only used for a server-wide OPTIONS request”. <http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.5.3.4> On 24 Jul 2014, at 1:18 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2014-07-24 17:27, Martin Thomson 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? > > I believe this is right, but it seems to me we really need a set of examples to make sure we got everything right. > > We also should consider an erratum for 1.1 that discourages use of the asterisk form for any new functionality. > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 17:26:34 UTC