Re: Method Mania

[Josh Cohen <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Matthew, that's good advice.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 7:10 PM Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 05:49, Josh Cohen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.  Looking at the http2 rfc9113[1], bottom
> of section 8.3.1, says:
> > "Individual HTTP/2 requests do not carry an explicit indicator of
> protocol version. All HTTP/2 requests implicitly have a protocol version of
> "2.0""
> >
> > So, there's no longer an explicit version string, or header.
> >
> > The reason I asked was when considering new methods.  The option of
> revving the version of the messaging/semantics layer isn't feasible.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9113#section-8.3.1
> >
>
> I'd do it the same way I would in HTTP/1.1 – either
> 1. send ":method: FOOBAR" and see what the server does, or
> 2. use OPTIONS. Either check that 'FOOBAR' is in the Allow field, or
> if I want more rich capability/compliance advertisement, send a
> "X-WantToUse-Foobar: 1" header field, and have the server signal its
> compliance appropriately
>
> That would always have been safer than just assuming a server that
> responds to "GET / HTTP/1.2" actually paid heed to the "2"
>
> Cheers
> --
>   Matthew Kerwin [he/him]
>   https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>


-- 

---
*Josh Co*hen