W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1995

Re: Cacheable extension methods (was: an idempotent idea)

From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 20:11:55 -0400
Message-Id: <199509110011.UAA25067@beach.w3.org>
To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>You said:
>	A proxy cannot forward a method it doesn't understand.
>	
>Why not?  It seems to me this places an unnecessary limitation on the
>protocol without reason.  (OK, you might have a reason, but you didn't
>state it, and it isn't obvious).

Because the semantics of the method determine whether or not the
request contains content and/or the response contains content,
and whether or not the request is intended for the immediate
server (possibly a proxy), all servers along the request route,
or just the origin server.

No firewall proxy will ever forward an action that it doesn't
know the consequences of.  In order to experiment with new methods,
all servers along the request/response chain must have a common
understanding of the semantics of the method.


 ....Roy T. Fielding  Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
                      Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
                      (fielding@w3.org)                (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Sunday, 10 September 1995 21:10:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:31 EDT