W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)

From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 13:34:21 -0500 (EST)
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1712
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>I have to admit that at this point I'm confused about how to handle
>the redo-safe: proposal. 
>What about if you write it up as a separate internet draft?
>That would let us process it as an independent item.

	I don't know if this merits a separate ID.  Here's my suggestion.
That an optional boolean reply header be added to the protocol:

Safe: yes | no

which applies only to methods that send content with the request.  It's
semantics would be  "This content as a subordinate to the Request-URI
(does not | indeed does) cause side effects for which the UA will be held
accountable."  The header would be optional and current default assumptions
about a method's safety would apply in it's absence.  UAs could use this
information to regulate their confirmation requests and/or warnings, and
their disposition of the content.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Received on Monday, 7 October 1996 10:43:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:00 UTC