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

Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:01:48 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D5E148BF-C9B0-456E-9317-9F88622BD1D6@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

Exactly. We're not here to re-design Allow or come up with a better  
mechanism; just to clarify what it means today.

To reiterate, my proposal:

> "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server  
> at the time of each request."
>
> to
>
> "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server  
> at the time of each request, and may not necessarily include all (or  
> any) methods that the server would actually allow in a request if  
> presented."

Some will argue that that's loosening the requirements of 2616; I  
don't think I buy that, because there isn't a RFC2119-level  
requirement about the contents of the header.

Thinking about the subsequent discussion, I'm ambivalent about adding  
a SHOULD-level requirement on the server side WRT completeness; I  
think the text above stands on its own.

Cheers,


On 01/03/2008, at 7:04 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>
> There is no point in arguing this.  Look at what has been  
> implemented so far
> and remove the cases that have not.
>
> ....Roy
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 3 March 2008 02:01:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT