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

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

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 16:08:28 -0700
Message-Id: <199509102308.QAA06072@bert.amazon.com>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
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).

Otherwise, the only "extension" methods possible in HTTP are ones that are
defined in the spec -- another limitation I also do not see any
reason for.

Why not allow servers to define their own methods, that will work in
special ways with client software that they distribute?  Why define it
so that intervening caches would break that?  And by your rule as
stated above, they would.

Received on Sunday, 10 September 1995 21:10:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:15 UTC