users@jax-rs-spec.java.net

[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: Allow header in (Request)HttpHeaders

From: Marek Potociar <marek.potociar_at_oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:58:55 +0100

On Mon 19 Dec 2011 11:23:07 AM CET, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-12-19 10:41, Marek Potociar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun 18 Dec 2011 01:12:23 PM CET, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-16 12:31, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I just recalled:
>>>
>>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/105>
>>>
>>> So HTTPbis makes it response-only.
>>
>> I see now - section 3.3 makes it clear. It would be good to re-state
>> the information also in 9.1; Previously I just checked 9.1 and the
>> wording there can be interpreted in multiple ways.
>
> 9.1 says:
>
> "The "Allow" header field lists the set of methods advertised as supported by the target resource. The purpose of this
> field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid request methods associated with the resource.

The above, without any other normative context, was what confused me. In context of sending a message a "recipient" may
also be the server. Just changing "recipient" to "response recipient" would make it fully clear.

>
> Allow = #Method
>
> Example of use:
>
> Allow: GET, HEAD, PUT
>
> The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server at the time of each request.
>
> A proxy MUST NOT modify the Allow header field — it does not need to understand all the methods specified in order to
> handle them according to the generic message handling rules."
>
> I would think that's clear.
>
> Note the change we made in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/232>; we fixed the classification and
> removed the text related to Allow: from the definition of PUT.
>
>>> Recommendation: when checking RFC 2616, please check the new drafts as well. We're getting close to Last Call.
>>
>> What is the ETA? What are the outstanding milestones and dates?
>
> See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011OctDec/0511.html>...
>
> There are no fixed dates (it takes as long as it takes :-); we plan to publish a new set of drafts this week, and
> hopefully we can do a Working Group Last Call on these early next year.

Ok, fingers crossed :)

Marek

>
> Best regards, Julian