W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:31:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD3-0rOU+L1Q-Oo6OoSzvc8mjw4Kf4XraSu3chijFOugSc191Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
Cc: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu> wrote:

> On 10/28/2016 04:04 AM, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
>
>>     * The HEAD method behaves as usual. The PUT method is probably not
>>     compatible with doing this. PATCH and DELETE are not compatible AFAIK.
>>
>> Not sure why a PUT/PATCH request can't have a streamed body.  I don't
>> think we want to over-spec how to use HTTP with this media type (which
>> is not the only stream-able media type either)
>>
>
> PUT can definitely have a streamed body, but protocols are a little more
> than that. PUT creates or replaces the resource with the enclosed
> representation, so whether PUT can be used depends on the protocol. If
> webstream is used like an event stream then there's definitely no problem;
> if it's used for MQTT the PUT semantics are lost.
>
> PATCH expects a media type containing instructions on how to modify the
> resource, so again it depends on the protocol.
>
> We should definitely not restrict it to specific methods, and that's not
> what I was trying to say. I was just trying to point out which methods
> should be mentioned in the document, even if only in an informative way or
> in examples.
>
> A more general paragraph about request methods forbidding bodies should be
> more than enough to cover everything without going too much into the
> details of each method.
>
Agreed.

Thanks.


>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 17:32:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 October 2016 17:32:16 UTC