- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 13:57:54 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 12.08.2019 10:11, Willy Tarreau wrote: > 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. Now tracked at <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/235>. FWIW, I believe this should be set to "held for document update". Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 August 2019 11:59:22 UTC