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

Issue 146, was: Users with different access rights in HTTP Authentication

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:38:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4C444736.1040402@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
On 08.04.2009 14:52, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Is this just a matter of s/allowed/supported/ in the definition of 405?
> Yes.
> That would make the definition of 405 consistent with the definition of
> the Allow header, which currently says:
> "The response-header field "Allow" lists the set of methods advertised
> as supported by the resource identified by the request-target. The
> purpose of this field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid
> methods associated with the resource. An Allow header field MUST be
> present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response." --
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06.html#rfc.section.9.1>
> That would still leave the reason phrase and the *name* of the "Allow"
> header confusing, but we'll probably have to live with that.
> BR, Julian

Proposed patch: 

This makes the default reason phrase for 405 "Method Not Supported", and 
also replaces "allowed" by "supported" in the context of 405/Allow.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 12:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC