From: email@example.com (Koen Holtman) Message-Id: <199806111819.UAA22553@wsooti08.win.tue.nl> To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Roy T. Fielding) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:19:11 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: On the harm of adding new methods Roy T. Fielding: > [Larry Masinter:] >>Forwarders MUST actually understand methods, because -- unfortunately -- >>the meaning of HTTP headers and responses differ based on the method >>of the request (e.g., Content-Length for HEAD vs GET). Many forwarding >>systems will not accept new methods gracefully. > >Actually, that is only true for HEAD and GET -- all header fields have >the same meaning for all other methods. [...] > I can't think of any other >exceptions at the moment -- if any have been added in the past year >or so, they need to be removed. I just checked the latest revision of the spec and no other exceptions have been added. Also, reviewing the material in sections 4.3 and 4.4, I conclude that it is possible to make an HTTP/1.1 forwarder which will correctly forward any 1.1 message even if it has an unknown new method. This is of course as it should be: the spec would be broken otherwise. Koen.