W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:50:56 -0800
Message-Id: <13f8f5c91d2a2ecbf43cb27e25914e3b@mnot.net>
To: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

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.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Date: March 6, 2005 9:43:11 PM PST
> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebDav methods and idempotency
> Hmm, that seems to be revising the semantics of PUT to be 
> non-idempotent; doesn't seem like a good idea...
> On Feb 26, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> RFC3253 allows PUT and COPY (target resource) to be auto-versioned. 
>> That is, everytime you PUT to a URI, you may be -- as a side effect 
>> -- creating a new version (and the DeltaV live properties on the 
>> resource will reflect this). Can we still consider this idempotent. 
>> RFC3253bis should say something about this..
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 20:50:59 UTC

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