- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:19:25 +0200
- 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 Standards. > 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