W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: rfc2518bis Safe Methods vs Redirection issue

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:09:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4145C651.6040301@gmx.de>
To: Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Jim Luther wrote:

> 
> In the HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> 
> there is a section titled "Safe Methods vs Redirection" which concludes 
> with "It would also be helpful for each of the method definition 
> sections to specifically define whether or not the method is safe. 
> OPTIONS, GET, and HEAD are all safe in RFC 2616. HTTP extensions like 
> WebDAV define additional safe methods."
> 
> I don't see anywhere in rfc2518 or rfc2518bis where WebDAV methods are 
> defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which WebDAV 
> methods are safe and which are unsafe.
> 
> In my code, I'm assuming PROPFIND is a safe method and that PROPPATCH, 
> MKCOL, COPY, MOVE, LOCK, and UNLOCK are unsafe methods by the 
> definitions in rfc2616, section 9.1.1 "Safe Methods". Does that sound 
> right to the working group?

Sounds right to me.

This a probably a to-do for the issues lists for RFC3253, RFC3648 and 
RFC3744 as well.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 16:10:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT