W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 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 13:26:01 -0400
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <734A627A-362A-4C21-B2D2-B701E6D1B490@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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

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