- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:50:25 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
FYI, new issue as per recent discussion. Begin forwarded message: > Resent-From: trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org > From: "httpbis" <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org> > Subject: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry > Date: 3 July 2012 4:48:23 PM AEST > To: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@tools.ietf.org, mnot@pobox.com > Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > > #364: Capturing more information in the method registry > --------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > Reporter: mnot@… | Owner: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@… > Type: design | Status: new > Priority: normal | Milestone: unassigned > Component: p2-semantics | Severity: Active WG Document > Keywords: | Origin: > --------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > We established the method registry in #72, and considered recording > idempotency there. However, we closed that issue without a definitive > answer, because we were still discussing the definition of idempotency. > > Should we add idempotency to the method registry? Anything else? > > -- > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/364> > httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 06:50:55 UTC