Re: Updated Proposal: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses

John Kemp wrote:
> David Morris wrote:
>>
>> This is fun ;-:) ... following the logic below (I agree with the
>> differentiation between 'a' and 'the'), the list in a 405 response
>> should be THE list for that particular context ... While there may be
>> other methods allowed, even in the given context, the server should never
>> provide a different list for the same conditions.

Note that Henrik's proposal (that I'm just about to apply :-)) differs 
from Mark's not only in "the" vs "a".

The original text is:

"The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by the 
resource identified by the Request-URI."

Henrik proposed to change that to:

"The Allow response-header field lists the set of methods advertised as 
supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI."

Mark's proposal was:

"The Allow response-header field advertises a set of methods as 
supported by the resource identified by the Request-URI."

I don't really think it makes a big difference; so Mark can weigh in as 
a chair if he feels that his proposal reflects the consensus better than 
Henrik's.

> That's true. So for a given resource, there is no (or not necessarily, 
> anyway) single list of allowed methods. The list returned is always 
> contextual, and the context may vary (while the Request-URI remains the 
> same).

That's why we introduced the term "advertised".

> ...

BTW: I would oppose any attempts to make this sound as if the allowed 
set is expected to change frequently. Do not forget that 405 != 403 and 
also 405 != 501.

BR, Julian