W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

RE: safe PUT

From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 96 10:40:00 PST
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <30EC1F1E@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>

Larry Masinter writes in <95Dec29.134224pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>:
>We've had a long discussion with various counter-proposals floated,
>but not much convergence. I'll ask all of you to decide between one of
>the following three alternatives (I can think of no others):
>
>- Are you interested in drafting a counter-proposal?
>- Should PUT go into HTTP/1.1 as originally specified, but
>  with a warning as to its unreliability?
>- Should PUT be removed from HTTP/1.1?

IMHO, PUT should go into HTTP/1.1 but with a warning on unreliability.  My 
wild hunch is that to start, out of all PUT-using servers, there will be few 
that will run into the PUT reliability problems.  This is just an 
extrapolation from:
1) My own experiences as an Intranet Webmaster (security considerations are 
less when you deal with fellow employees); and
2) Trade press reports saying that # of Intranet Webs >> # of Internet Webs.
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN
Received on Thursday, 4 January 1996 07:45:22 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:42 EDT