Re: Changing PUT's idempotency after the fact [was: WebDav methods and idempotency]

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It *appears* that RFC3253 changes the idempotency of PUT; is this 
> allowed? RFC3253 doesn't update or obsolete 2616...
> 
> I can see a situation where a 3253-naive client decides to retry a 
> timed-out PUT (after all, it's idempotent) and gets some side effects 
> it didn't bargain for. Not a *huge* problem that happens every day, but 
> it's a bit worrisome.

Hopefully there's an ETag and such clients use it, in these scenarios.

-- Jamie