- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 16:30:39 -0500 (EST)
- To: koen@win.tue.nl
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote: [....] > [Koen:] >>>Thus, introducing a `Redo-Safe: yes' header would make more sense >>>than `Idempotent: yes'. >> >> The concept of "safe" is subject to a variety of interpetations, >>in contrast to "idempotent", which can be defined precisely. > >The 1.1 spec defines both "safe" and "idempotent" precisely. With the >1.1 definitions, the header name we want is "Redo-Safe", not >"Idempotent". > >The "idempotent" definition in the 1.1 spec talks about _all_ side >effects, not just unsafe side effects. This makes "idempotent" a >pretty useless term for discussing real-life http applications. Yes, I see that. Both the HTTP/1.0 RFC and the HTTP/1.1 draft discuss the issue of side effects for which the UA (or it's human user) are responsible under a section labeled "Safe Methods", so "safe" is a long established, precise term. I'm still groping for some name for the header which implies a status report on whether such a side effect has occurred, but all things considered, Redo-Safe: yes | no (with default no for POST) may be interpretted in that way ("If the server replied that this can be redone safely, it must have been done without solicited side effects this time.") and in effect covers both bases. My reading of the third paragraph in Section 9.1.1 is that side-effects, per se, are not precluded for GET, though perhaps Section 9.1.2 contradicts this. In any case, "unsafe" ones definitely are precluded, which means that "Redo-Safe: no" in reply to a GET must be disallowed, even though caching problems for GET might be addressed via Cache-Control headers. I also can't think of a situation in which it would be appropriate to use Redo-Safe for changing the default assumptions about the OPTIONS, HEAD, PUT, DELETE, or TRACE methods. So, can/should Redo-Safe be restricted to POST requests, and be ignored by the UA if received in a reply for any other method? Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Thursday, 3 October 1996 13:37:52 UTC