- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:11:09 +0200
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 08:05:52PM +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > With this said, I don't know how common > > it is to respond with 204 to an OPTIONS request given that 204 is > > reportedly cacheable by default (6.3.5) while OPTIONS is said not to > > be. Thus more confusion may arise on this point as well. > > > > That should not be an issue since the 204 caching is explicitly "unless > otherwise indicated by the method definition". OK that makes sense indeed. Willy
Received on Monday, 12 August 2019 08:12:09 UTC