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

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

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:13:04 +0200
To: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20100719211304.GA14242@1wt.eu>
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:24:58PM -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 7/19/2010 3:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 19.07.2010 21:06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Proposed
> >>> patch:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/146/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This makes the default reason phrase for 405 "Method Not Supported",
> >>> and also replaces "allowed" by "supported" in the context of 405/Allow.
> >>
> >> I don't believe that makes any sense.  Why the methods are allowed
> >> (or others disallowed) is none of the client's business.  It certainly
> >> has nothing to do with "support" (as in implemented).
> >> ...
> > 
> > OK, then we may need a different term. "Allow" has caused people to
> > think it has to do with access rights, thus confusing 405 with 403.
> 
> What about framing this in terms of Method Not Applicable (which might be
> unsupported, unimplemented, or simply nonsensical in the context of this
> specific resource), which covers just about everything?

or also "not acceptable" ?

Just my few cents,
Willy
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 21:13:47 GMT

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