W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1998

Re: ADAMS1, point 31. (cachability of methods).

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:35:05 -0800
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9811171835.aa10963@paris.ics.uci.edu>
I'm fine with Jeff's updated wording, though I think worrying about
the cached entry corresponding to the new request method should be
part of the definition of cachable rather than having to repeat the
conditional in several places.  In any case, these are just clarifying
what the implementer should be able to figure out on their own.

What does bother me is

>and also with 5.1.1
>
>Servers SHOULD return the status code 405 (Method Not Allowed) if the
>method is known by the server but not allowed for the requested resource,
>and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is unrecognized or not implemented
>by the server.

which is a bug -- it should say

   An origin server SHOULD return the status code 405 (Method Not Allowed)
   if the method is known by the origin server but not allowed for the
   requested resource, and 501 (Not Implemented) if the method is unrecognized
   or not implemented by the origin server.

....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 1998 02:40:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:26 EDT