- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:36:28 +0200
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 19.08.2019 13:57, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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". ...and resolved (<https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/commit/1b632ed7035f6712d59f38c47fe38af49f672bba>). ADs: please set to "held for document update". Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2019 12:37:51 UTC