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

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

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:45:24 -0700
Message-Id: <E80A1B5C-20C8-11D9-8A83-000393753936@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

On Oct 17, 2004, at 3:52 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 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?

I already gave my technical objections.  HTTP doesn't allow it.  You
can't just redefine the messaging model of HTTP (and, in this case,
MIME) while defining a method.  There is no way to do that in HTTP
because there is no way to check that all servers between the client
and the origin are aware of this abuse before sending the message,
nor is there any technical reason for redefining an existing header
field to mean something other than what is in two Draft Standards.

In short, the IM suggestion is a dead end.  It will not survive IESG
review and it will not be deployed, just as RFC 3229 has not been
deployed.  If you continue down this path, then I formally request that
you stop abusing the method that I already defined and change the
method name to something that I can ignore, like "VCDIFF".

....Roy
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 05:45:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:36 GMT