- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 16:02:12 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 31 August 2014 20:16, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >> Note that the SETTINGS frame is a sufficient response if the request >> was for OPTIONS. > > Are you suggesting that we wouldn't provide an HTTP-level response > (other than the 101) to the OPTIONS request? I am saying that the 101 (in HTTP/1.1 bits) is followed immediately by a SETTINGS frame (in HTTP/2 bits), and that SETTINGS frame is a response if the original request was for OPTIONS * (but not for something like OPTIONS /). OPTIONS * was designed for that purpose after the first discussions of HTTPng. SETTINGS is exactly what OPTIONS * is meant to retrieve. So, all we have to say is that an h2 response to an Upgrade for an "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1" request is the SETTINGS frame. But that's just one alternative. We could also simply tunnel the HTTP/1.1 response back as a Headers+END_STREAM, which might be needed for some unknown extensions if they already abuse OPTIONS *. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 23:02:35 UTC