W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Updated Proposal: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:27:15 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AFD6BF47-BFCB-4EEE-BA98-DC4E145ADDC0@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

OK. The proposal is now:

* In the definition of Allow, change:
   The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by  
the resource identified by the Request-URI.
to
   The Allow entity-header field advertises a set of methods as  
supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI.

* And, remove:
   This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods.  
However, the indications given by the Allow header field value SHOULD  
be followed.



On 03/04/2008, at 9:45 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

>
> ons 2008-04-02 klockan 14:42 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
>> You mean ... "405 is a more detailed..."? Agreed.
>
> Yes. Sorry for the obvious typo.
>
>> Which IMHO means we should remove the "SHOULD" level requirement.
>
> I claim that it doesn't really matter. SHOULD is a SHOULD (not MUST)  
> and
> implementers who have trouble implementing a SHOULD for some reason is
> free to not to as long as they carefully consider the effects of doing
> so. SHOULD level requirements is there to clarify what common sense is
> and making sure all implementers have about the same idea of what  
> makes
> sense.
>
> The requirement as such makes sense to be a SHOULD as it does not  
> make a
> lot sense from a protocol perspective to send requests using methods  
> not
> included in the set advertised as supported (if a such set is
> advertised).
>
> With the proposed change in language I do not care either way. The
> client requrement may stay or go as far as I am concerned.
>
> Regards
> Henrik
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 02:27:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT