Allowing "Allow" "Accept" sounds right to me.

Whether we want to make this in scope of http11ter we'll need to discuss...

Opened #119 to discuss inclusion of RFC 7694.

If we decide not to do this, should we update 7694 instead?

@reschke I think you mean "Accept" above, not "Allow", correct?

Right.

Discussed in Montreal; some support for doing this, but take it to the list.

@martinthomson - what was the outcome on the ACME side?

I think that they avoided it:

If a request does not meet this requirement, then the server MUST return a response with status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type).

With no mention of Accept. I don't know what Boulder does, but can probably find out if absolutely necessary.

@martinthomson - that would be great.

In Boulder, if a POST doesn't have Content-Type: application/json, we return 415 with no Accept header.

I don't understand the initial issue here fully but it would be nice If HTTP would have something to indicate in a response which response payloads it provides, e.g. using Accept: application/json; q=1.0, text/html; q=0.9 in a response (e.g. to a OPTIONS request)!

And what also would be nice is if the resource could also inform the client which media types it supports in the request (as JSON has no forms to include this information and HTML only allows forms with application/x-www-form-urlencoded and multipart/form-data there is no standardized way to tell clients the possibilities).

Discussed in Basel; ACME apparently doesn't need this any more. Waiting on resolution of #119.

@reschke do you wan to take this one?

I can give it a try.