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

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.

				Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================