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


From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:40:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4CB56279.5010006@webr3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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).

Will do, and thanks for your continued help Julian,


Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 07:41:40 UTC

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