Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806)
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 12 August 2019 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8B9120A21 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3uicB4b90eG0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F6D1213A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hx5R6-0007oj-Dl for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:12:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:12:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hx5R6-0007oj-Dl@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1hx5R3-0007no-Og for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:12:09 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1hx5R2-00009T-8u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 08:12:09 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x7C8B9gp003186; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:11:09 +0200
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 10:11:09 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20190812081109.GB3159@1wt.eu>
References: <20190812022730.63FF7B8132E@rfc-editor.org> <20190812054953.GA3133@1wt.eu> <9b04f845-ef92-a536-ed5c-ecc9479b6f2a@treenet.co.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9b04f845-ef92-a536-ed5c-ecc9479b6f2a@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.104, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hx5R2-00009T-8u 1841dbee3e168bbbed284490329dbf2f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190812081109.GB3159@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36972
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) Amos Jeffries
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) Julian Reschke
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806) Julian Reschke