ISSUE-32 and OPTIONS (was: More issues available for review in editor's draft: accept-post and options

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I also note that some of our F2F resolutions make requirements on OPTIONS
> responses (only) that I do not think have the same level of Should/Must on
> HEAD responses, but I drafted as things were minuted.  So to the degree
> people care about that form of symmetry, bring up issues if needed.


John and I chatted on this, it seems to make sense that we follow a general
rule that headers included/required for OPTIONS are required for HEAD and
GET.  We don't have any exceptions to this rule at this point, if we do in
the future, we can edit correct as needed.  Drafting this way, avoids a
bunch of duplication of content or many redundant references.

Let us know if sounds wrong, see current editor's draft.

- Steve Speicher