- 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>
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 >service. > >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