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

Re: New issue: Need for an HTTP request method registry

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:17:17 +1200
Message-ID: <46B79DED.20306@qbik.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


in principle I agree.

However I would strongly caution against the proliferation of methods.

<horse:dead:flog>

since I write a proxy, I'm biased towards proxies, but every time a 
method is added to HTTP, we eventually get requests to support it.

Even if it is painful, we can at least do that since we're software-based.

But there are zillions of deployed hardware-based HTTP gateways that 
don't get firmware updates.  These will be broken for any new methods 
until they are replaced.  Many of these intercept connections as well :)

A layered approach might be a better solution to implementing new 
higher-level applications.  One that doesn't invalidate deployed 
servers, gateways etc.

e.g. use HTTP for the transport only, not the higher-level application 
layer.  It would solve a lot of compatibility issues for proxy and 
gateway vendors, reduce obsolescence and generally improve customer 
return on investment.  Furthermore it would restrict the scope of 
changes required for any functionality to only those parties involved 
(i.e. specific servers and clients) rather than all intervening HTTP 
infrastructure as well.

</horse:dead:flog>


Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>> I see a need for an official HTTP request method registry to be
>> established, preferably maintained by IANA.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Yes.
>
> Seems we should add this to the issues list.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 22:16:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT