[jax-rs-spec users] [jsr339-experts] Re: OPTIONS Response: HTTP Allow only ?

From: Julian Reschke <>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:14:37 +0200

On 2013-05-16 18:31, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi
> On 16/05/13 17:23, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-05-16 17:58, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> According to [1], response to OPTIONS 'SHOULD' also provide a body
>>> (albeit) in the unspecified format, as opposed to setting a well-known
>>> HTTP Allow header.
>> As far as I can tell, it does not say that.
> This is the text, with '*' delimiters added by me :
> "*The response payload*, if any, might also describe the communication
> options in a machine or human-readable representation. A standard
> format for such a representation is not defined by this
> specification, but might be defined by future extensions to HTTP. A
> server MUST generate a Content-Length field with a value of "0" *if no
> payload body* is to be sent in the response."
> So at least there is some indication that it is an option.

Yes, it's optional. That's not a SHOULD.

> A colleague of mine also pointed to the older text
> ( where it is said
> slightly differently.
> FYI, I'm not advocating for the implementations to set the response
> body. We are seeing some TCK test failures where the body is checked,
> hence I'm asking. I honestly do not mind whether the body is also
> included or not :-), but the current HTTPBis text with its 'might'
> action really tells me that we rather not worry about creating an
> OPTIONS response body

Indeed, you don't need to.

Best regards, Julian