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: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:17:51 +0200
Message-ID: <414C89DF.8080101@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?

So should we state this in the BIND spec? Such as:

BIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).

REBIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).

UNBIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).


Feedback appreciated,

Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2004 19:18:53 GMT

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