Re: remove PATCH, COPY, MOVE, DELETE, etc.? Upgrade?

> HTTP-WG is in a state of crisis. We urgently need a standards-track
> document that
> ...
> * supports those features that vendors have implemented because of
>   customer demand (state tracking, range retrieval)

That's new.  State tracking has never been considered important to
HTTP/1.1 and, except for caching issues, is orthogonal to the standard.
There is no reason for it not to be a separate draft.
The caching issues were handled via the Cache-control header.

Range retrieval wasn't even considered until a week before draft 00
was submitted and has only been advocated by 3 people.  Even so, we
came up with a solution in the form of 206, Content-Range, and Range.
I am not aware of any implementations of partial GET requests.

> What we don't need are arguments of the form "if we have X, we must
> have Y, because Y is necessary to complete X."

Which is the same as saying X won't achieve consensus without Y, which
is why you are wrong on this issue.  If that occurs, both X and Y get
postponed to 1.2.  There are some X's that are worth delaying the standard.

> There *were* disagreements about the form of TRACE, which are
> apparently resolved. DELETE is an easy target. (Uh, what's it do to
> negotiable resources? Delete all of them? What happens with proxy
> caches? ....) 

Those are *your* questions about DELETE, not the WG's.  In answer,
DELETE of a negotiable resource does mean deletion of that resource.
Proxy caches do exactly what is already defined in draft 01.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    (
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425    fax:+1(714)824-4056

Received on Saturday, 24 February 1996 23:09:20 UTC