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

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

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:54:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m7D65zeiM4OD1W8y3J2gCqHzZ9vj3R4h2LZVwtJLRpuCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, I think safety and idempotence are most needed in this table of
previously registered methods.

Per Julian's comment: if one of the reasons to leave idempotence off the
list is that we don't know whether some of these methods are idempotent or
not, then I'd opt for saying that in this table ("UNK", etc.) rather than
leaving that property out of the table completely.

On a related note, I wasn't able to find any details on the method
registry. Anyone able to give me some pointers?
mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me







On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> My .02 -
>
> I think we should list safety and idempotency, at the most.
>
> Including other information is too simplistic; e.g., cacheability depends
> on a LOT more than the method, capturing how the method affects
> cacheability in a table is problematic (see: POST).
>
> I'd also be OK with removing all such information, because people really
> need to read the WHOLE method definition.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 03/07/2012, at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:55:34 GMT