W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Fwd: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:50:25 +1000
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <12A52956-8EA5-4FF2-9605-2A257C306A5F@mnot.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2012 06:51:01 GMT