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: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:35:38 +1100
Cc: "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <D9DD9131-5C4D-4896-8F92-3A21F15B9598@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

My understanding is that a proposal along these lines* is acceptable,  
with one exception; Julian believes that if we do this, we should also  
relax the client-side requirement.

One way to do that would be to change "SHOULD"->"should" (i.e., make  
it advisory text, instead of a requirement).

Thoughts?


* In my mind,the "the"->"a" proposal is roughly equivalent to the  
proposed text below.



On 07/03/2008, at 2:33 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:

>> 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."
>>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> - Rob


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 04:36:02 GMT

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