Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5806)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:36:28 +0200

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