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

Re: Proposal: Is OPTIONS Safe? [#171]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:05:33 +1000
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <81D26F7F-BDBC-4ADE-A23E-DF0FDEC6B831@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
No objections, and I note that 2616 already says in 9.1.2:

"Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and  
so are inherently idempotent."

Julian, please go ahead.



On 05/06/2009, at 10:31 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Proposal:
>
> Confirm both OPTIONS and TRACE as safe methods. Any objections?
>
>
> On 04/06/2009, at 3:48 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> No real opinion. I suppose it is safe, in the sense that it doesn't  
>> change the state of the resource. Whether it should be  
>> automatically redirected isn't a terribly interesting question  
>> AFAICT, so I think it is...
>>
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/171
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2009, at 3:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> We already state that in Part 2, Section 10.1, but that is only  
>>> the IANA registration (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06.html#rfc.section.10.1 
>>> >)...
>>>
>>> So yes, the method description should state that as well.
>>>
>>> What about TRACE then (which is the 4th candidate)?
>>>
>>> BR, Julian
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 13:06:11 GMT

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