- 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>
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 UTC