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


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:19:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4CB55D7D.6040208@gmx.de>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 12.10.2010 23:51, Nathan wrote:
> ...
>> Alternatives are LINK/UNLINK
>> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.1>)
> What's the status of the LINK and UNLINK methods? I'm aware PATCH has
> been put through standards track under RFC 5789, is there an effort to
> do the same for LINK and UNLINK?

Nothing I'm aware of, but you're not the first one to ask.

> I guess what I'm saying is that since 2068 has been obsoleted by 2616
> which doesn't define them, and since we're now approaching HTTP-Bis
> which again doesn't define them, is it still 'ok' to use LINK and UNLINK
> when the network scale awareness (perhaps) isn't there? (caches may not
> be invalidated etc)

Of course it's ok. LINK/UNLINK continue to be defined by a Proposed 

> As an aside, would there be scope to redefine them in HTTP-Bis, or would
> this need done under separate RFC as done with PATCH - etc, sure you
> follow my line of questioning :)

I think this would require a new RFC.

That being said, I'd like to encourage you to seriously consider the 
other alternative I mentioned (PROPPATCH).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 07:20:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC