- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:26:22 +1100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Now <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>. Also, looking at the text for PUT: > The recipient of the entity 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. I wonder if 'recipient' is the right term to use; what does it mean for an intermediary to understand Content-*? On 17/02/2008, at 3:13 AM, Brian Smith wrote: > > Brian Smith wrote: >>> 3) Should we mention this in the PATCH spec; minimally requiring >>> servers to either reject requests with Content-Range headers >> >> Servers are already required by RFC 2616 to reject any >> request with a Content-Range header unless it knows what to >> do with it. > > Actually, this is wishful thinking on my part. HTTPbis should have > that > requirement that Content-* cannot be ignored for any method that > uses a > request body (especially POST), but RFC 2616 only has the requirement > for PUT. Can a new issue be created for that? > > - Brian > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 00:26:41 UTC