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

Re: Interpretation of response body in case of PUT and 200 Ok

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:05:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4B1BE45B.1040301@gmx.de>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> section 8.2.1 of RFC 2616 provides information how recipients
> of 200 Ok responses should interprete the response body (this
> is at least my understanding of the text of 8.2.1).

I assume you mean 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08.html#rfc.section.8.2.1>?

> What is the intended interpretation of the response body in
> PUT requests? Should the client understand the body to be
> a representation of the request URI of the PUT request? Or
> more like "an entity describing or containing the result of
> the action" like in the case of POST?

We have made some progress on this issue with draft 08, see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08.html#rfc.section.6.1>:

"6.1 Identifying the Resource Associated with a Representation

It is sometimes necessary to determine the identity of the resource 
associated with a representation.

An HTTP request representation, when present, is always associated with 
an anonymous (i.e., unidentified) resource.

In the common case, an HTTP response is a representation of the resource 
located at the request-URI. However, this is not always the case. To 
determine the URI of the resource a response is associated with, the 
following rules are used (first match winning):

    1. If the response status code is 200 or 203 and the request method 
was GET, the response is a representation of the resource at the 
request-URI.
    2. If the response status is 204, 206, or 304 and the request method 
was GET or HEAD, the response is a partial representation of the 
resource at the request-URI (see Section 2.7 of [Part6]).
    3. If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is 
the same as the request-URI [rfc.comment.1: (see [ref])], the response 
is a representation of the resource at the request-URI.
    4. If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is 
not the same as the request-URI, the response asserts that it is a 
representation of the resource at the Content-Location URI (but it may 
not be).
    5. Otherwise, the response is a representation of an anonymous 
(i.e., unidentified) resource."

So the answer for PUT->200 would be that it's undefined, unless it comes 
with a Content-Location header.

> I looked at draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-08 and the issues list
> and both do not seem to address this either.

<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/110>

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/22>

> If you feel it is appropriate, I think 8.2.1 should be augmented
> with an explanatory paragraph for PUT.

All method descriptions do require a rewrite, I think.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 December 2009 17:06:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:14 GMT