W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: issue 79: must understand content-* header fields or fail

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:45:05 +1000
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <886E0574-6310-40FE-B063-71ED752A17B9@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I've seen one message agreeing with Roy's proposal to remove the Content-* language as per below.

Note that doing this would close both #79 and #102 <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102>.

In the discussion of #102, Roy said

> At most, this should only warn implementations that all of the metadata needs to be understood or discarded whenever changes are made to the corresponding data.


I think it's worth adding a bit of (non-requirement) guidance to the definition of PUT along these lines if we remove this requirement.

Any objections to closing these issues by doing so?



On 30/07/2009, at 8:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> The editors spent some time discussing
> 
>  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79
> 
> with regard to the requirement in RFC 2616, section.9.6,
> the description of PUT:
> 
> "The recipient of the entity MUST NOT ignore any Content-*
> (e.g. Content-Range) headers that it does not understand or
> implement and MUST return a 501 (Not Implemented) response
> in such cases."
> 
> The purpose of this requirement was to enable some future
> use of Content-Range for the purpose of partial updates.
> 
> No server that I am aware of supports that requirement.
> Partial updates should be accomplished using a new method
> (PATCH) rather than a retroactive requirement on deployed
> services that nobody implemented.
> 
> My proposal is to remove that sentence from the spec and
> note in the changes section that the requirement was removed
> in favor of deploying PATCH.
> 
> ....Roy
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 05:45:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:23 GMT