W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Comments on draft-dusseault-http-patch-08, was: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-http-patch-08.txt]

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:30:23 +0200
Message-ID: <46A788AF.9010809@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

James M Snell wrote:
>> Section 2.1., para. 6:
>> OLD:
>>     It is RECOMMENDED that Servers provide strong ETags for all resources
>>     for which PATCH is supported.
>> Again, there's a set patch operations where the previous state of the
>> resource is irrelevant, such as for "append" operations.  I think they
>> should be allowed, thus this requirement is a problem.  Just state that
>> strong etags can help making sure that you apply the patch to the
>> version you want it   apply to, and let's leave it at that.
> If this were a MUST, I'd agree.  There are some extremely good reasons
> why an ETag should be provided, even if there are some good cases where
> they might not be useful.

If it's foreseeable that in some use cases they aren't useful, there 
shouldn't be SHOULD-level requirement to provide them.

>> Section 2.1., para. 8:
>> OLD:
>>     The server MUST NOT ignore any Content-* (e.g.  Content-Range)
>>     headers that it does not understand or implement and MUST return a
>>     501 (Not Implemented) response in such cases.
>> A MUST level requirement with a wild card Just Does Not Work.  I'm not
>> even sure what this is about.  As far as I understand what we could say,
>> if at all, is that entity headers sent with the request apply to the
>> enclosed entity, not the resource being addressed.  Thus, for instance,
>> a "Content-Language" request header in PATCH describes the natural
>> language of the patch document (entity).  So what why would it be a
>> problem to ignore it?  Or, rephrasing it, what do you expect the server
>> to do with it?
> FWIW, this language was actually taken directly from RFC2616.  For

Interesting, we'll have to clarify this in rfc2616bis then.

> something like Content-Language, ignoring it really is not all that much
> of a problem.  For Content-Range, however, ignoring the header could
> cause some serious problems with the processing of the PATCH operation.

Yes. Let's state clearly what the requirement is then. MUST NOT ignore 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:30:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:24 UTC