W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Proposal: 205 Bodies [#88]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:18 +0200
Message-Id: <63A95CA1-5FA3-4647-BE49-76BCEFE63A54@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> We have a similar situation around request bodies --
>>> A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the  
>>> specification of the request method (Section 2 of [Part2])  
>>> explicitly disallows an entity-body in requests.
>> What I'd like to do in both cases is make it more apparent that  
>> the list of exceptions is closed, by not predicating it on an  
>> external MUST NOT.
>
> That's a good point.
>
>> In the case for requests, I think the entire sentence disappears,  
>> because we have not specified any method that disallow request  
>> bodies (unless one of the many WebDAV methods places this  
>> requirement on requests, and even then...).
>
> Nope, WebDAV doesn't do that.
>
> From RFC2616 I see two potential candidates: (1) TRACE (which uses  
> the same terminology as the 205 status that started this thread:  
> "MUST NOT include an entity"), and (2) CONNECT (?).

There are no candidates.  Any change to the message parsing algorithm
would require a major bump in HTTP version.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 09:58:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT