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

Re: PROPOSAL: i24 Requiring Allow in 405 Responses

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:44 +1100
Cc: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Stefan Eissing' <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A9E28CE3-8E26-4782-8FBC-A8C15996F4E9@mnot.net>
To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>

I think some change is needed, because the text currently places  
unclear conformance requirements on servers and clients.

Revised proposal;

In p2 10.1, change
'''This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods.  
However, the indications given by the Allow header field value SHOULD  
be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the  
origin server at the time of each request.'''
to
'''The advertised set of allowed methods may not necessarily include  
all (or any) methods that the server would actually allow in a  
presented request.'''

(keeping in mind that the start of the Allow's header definition is:
'''The Allow entity-header field lists the set of methods supported by  
the resource identified by the Request-URI. The purpose of this field  
is strictly to inform the recipient of valid methods associated with  
the resource.'''
)


On 19/03/2008, at 9:30 AM, John Kemp wrote:

>
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't strongly object the suggested changes, but I simply don't see
>> why they are needed.
>
> +1. I don't see how they actually make the situation any clearer  
> than it is today, and so I wonder why they are needed.
>
> - johnk
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 00:55:35 GMT

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