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 11:59:02 +1200
Message-ID: <46B7B5C6.2020401@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>



Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On tis, 2007-08-07 at 10:56 +1200, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>> that was my point regarding TCP.  Imagine if TCP had been written with 
>> TCP flag extensibility built in.
>
> Oh, well, it was and is.. the "Reserved" flags was for future extension,
> and it's also relatively trivial to extend TCP with new TCP options. 
understood, although I did mean specifically the TCP flags field.  I 
don't think any TCP flag has been added for many many years if ever.

TCP flags IMO are akin to HTTP methods.  They define the set of states 
and state transitions etc.  TCP options are more akin to HTTP headers.  
They are modifiers rather than definers of state (if that makes any sense).

Adding methods and response codes to HTTP is like adding a new TCP 
flag.  Most people wouldn't even consider that an option, and wouldn't 
even start down that path.  It likely breaks any intermediaries as well 
as servers and clients

Adding new headers is like adding a new option to TCP (like SACK etc).  
That is a lot more approachable, but still highly significant and 
onerous.  It is normally a lot less likely to break existing infrastructure.

Anyway, I guess not that useful a simile.  The point I was trying to 
make is we shouldn't be adding new methods and status codes unless 
there's absolutely no other way to do something, and that thing really 
needs to be done.  There's pretty much always another way.

P.s sorry overlooked your point before about the registry being a place 
to find relevant RFCs.  I'd put my vote in for such a registry for that 
reason alone.

Regards

Adrien

>
> That's how we got Window scaling, SACK, Timestamping (Round-trip
> measurements and PAWS), ECN, and a bunch of other less known TCP
> extensions.
>
> But unlike HTTP TCP extensions is more strictly controlled with more
> people keeping a close eye on what is being done.
>
> Regards
> Henrik

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 23:58:44 GMT

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