W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: draft-reschke-http-addmember-00]

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:53:42 -0500
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20050216125342.GA4504@markbaker.ca>

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:02:46PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> This feature of HTTP is already defined as
>   POST + media-type ==> 201 + location

I was thinking the same thing Roy, but a new method would have the
advantage of improved visibility; an intermediary observing a POST/201
interaction wouldn't see anything in the POST request which licensed it
to interpret that request as an attempt to store state, whereas a new
method would provide exactly that license.

Had HTTP a means for extending a method to declare this additional
expectation (as described in the draft's A.3 using RFC 2774), I agree
that POST + extension would be appropriate.

> The media type is more than
> sufficient to distinguish this action from any other type of
> misdirected POST,

How so?  AFAICT, the media type could be anything.  Did I miss something
in the I-D?  But even if there was such a limitation, that seems a bit
kludgy to me; could such an assumption be expected to hold for even the
foreseeable future?  I wouldn't have thought so.


Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 12:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:26 UTC