RE: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)

From: Yaron Goland (yarong@microsoft.com)
Date: Mon, Aug 17 1998


Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D08792391@RED-MSG-59>
From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <frystyk@w3.org>, ietf-http-ext@w3.org
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:50:37 -0700
Subject: RE: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 1998 7:06 AM
> To: Yaron Goland; ietf-http-ext@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Submission of HTTP Extension Framework (Mandatory)
> 
> 
> >At 21:41 8/11/98 -0700, Yaron Goland wrote:

> >If one receives a response to a DELETE with a mandatory header on it,
> >treating the body as if it were application/octet-stream 
> does not provide
> >any help in determining what has actually happened as a 
> result of the DELETE
> >method. I believe section 6 needs to use more restrictive 
> language of the
> >form "The server MUST NOT send back mandatory headers on the 
> response unless
> >some form of negotiation has already occured which 
> specifically allows it."
> 
> I would think SHOULD covers this: "You'd better do this 
> unless you have a
> really darn good reason not to". You can still rely on the 
> status code so
> that if you get 200 (and 102) then you know that it was deleted.
> 

"really darn good reason" doesn't cover it because you are forcing the
client into a situation where it has absolutely no hope of ever figuring out
what happened. Putting software into indeterminate state is a bad enough
crime to merit a MUST to prevent it.

			Yaron