W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-06

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:52:11 -0700
Message-Id: <2E938E4A-208F-11D9-AC2A-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Jeffrey Mogul suggested this change from the -05 model; I think it 
works at least as well as the model where the request body is modelled 
as an instance.  It's entirely consistent with RFC3229's model.  And 
instead of using the IANA MIME type registry, it uses the IANA 
instance-manipulation registry.  Do you have any technical objections 
to using the IM header and the instance-manipulation values?

On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> That seems to break HTTP semantics, because the Content-Type header is 
> supposed to identify the type of the request body, not the one of the 
> entity it's applied to. Furthermore, the information seems to be 
> completely useless unless you specifify what a server is to do in case 
> of a mismatch.

The model of HTTP used by RFC3229 is one in which the Content-Type 
header applies to the entity's body type.  Then when an instance 
manipulation is applied the request body might end up in gzip format or 
in a patch format, but the Content-Type doesn't change.  The proposal 
does specify what to do in case of a mismatch -- the server is 
requested to change the MIME type of the resource to the new one 
provided by the client.

BTW, the change to call the patch documents "delta encodings" is also 
to be more consistent with RFC3229 now that I understand it better.

I really don't know what to do about the IPR issue around VCDIFF since 
I am not a lawyer; since the IESG already made RFC3284 into a Standards 
Track document, I assume this will be acceptable.

Received on Sunday, 17 October 2004 22:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:38 UTC