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: Musatov, Martin - CW <Martin.Musatov@bestbuy.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:43:42 +0000
To: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1A861E6970A91447BBC0BD2021F75320029FF98D@SN2PRD0610MB371.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
'pointer, Mark'? I'm not familiar. Is this a semantic term? :)

-----Original Message-----
From: mca@amundsen.com [mailto:mca@amundsen.com] On Behalf Of mike amundsen
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 3:15 PM
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

Thanks for the pointer, Mark:

In reading both 2.2 and 2.2.1 there is (in my mind at least) some discrepancy:

>From 2.2:
"Registrations MUST include the following fields:
- Method Name (see Section 2)
- Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 2.1.1)
- Pointer to specification text"

>From 2.2.1:
"New method definitions need to indicate whether they are safe (Section 2.1.1), what semantics (if any) the request body has, and whether they are idempotent (Section 2.1.2)."

So, when registering a new method in the future, indicating Safety is a MUST; indicating Idempotence is a .... SHOULD? MAY? And what of body length/semantics, and cachability? SHOULD? MAY?

>From my POV, resolving the above Qs will better inform decisions on
how to complete the table in "Initial Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) Method Registrations"


mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me




On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/07/2012, at 5:54 AM, mike amundsen wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> It's set up here:
>   
> https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2
> -semantics.html#method.registry
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2012 20:44:31 GMT