W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: I-D Action:draft-snell-http-prefer-03.txt

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:51:03 +0000
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21540.1301467863@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <5901086EE0C2B0C990D24ED8@cyrus.local>, Cyrus Daboo writes:

>In the CalDAV (RFC4791) world we do have servers immediately modifying data 
>PUT by clients with the requirement that clients then have to immediately 
>do a GET. This happens because the server typically does take immediate 
>action to do some form of scheduling - that may simply be to add an 
>indicator to the data that a scheduling operation is pending (and that 
>operation then happens asynchronously). Avoiding the extra roundtrip would 
>be beneficial in this case particularly as mobile devices make use of this 
>That said, I agree with Roy that adding clarifying text about appropriate 
>use cases makes sense.

Cool, so now I just wonder why we need to "spend" an RFC on a header
which is an optional polite query ?

Wouldn't it be smarter to RFC4791 and give the header more bite than
a polite request ?

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 06:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:56 UTC