W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1995

Re: 'PUT' transaction reconsidered (was Re: two-phase send concerns )

From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 09:01:00 PST
To: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <30E2CD76@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>

Larry Masinter writes in <95Dec28.011521pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>:
>So, we might leave the 'is this OK to PUT' as an optional part of the
>protocol, and let clients use heuristics (how fast/reliable is the
>connection to the server vs how big is the transaction) to decide
>whether or not to use the optional part.

I would also argue for this because of the security concerns raised by Roy. 
 It should, however, be an option because probably most systems do not need 
this level of security.  Some do, though...
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN
Received on Thursday, 28 December 1995 06:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC