Changing PUT's idempotency after the fact [was: WebDav methods and idempotency]

It *appears* that RFC3253 changes the idempotency of PUT; is this 
allowed? RFC3253 doesn't update or obsolete 2616...

I can see a situation where a 3253-naive client decides to retry a 
timed-out PUT (after all, it's idempotent) and gets some side effects 
it didn't bargain for. Not a *huge* problem that happens every day, but 
it's a bit worrisome.

Thoughts?


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Date: March 6, 2005 9:43:11 PM PST
> To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WebDav methods and idempotency
>
> Hmm, that seems to be revising the semantics of PUT to be 
> non-idempotent; doesn't seem like a good idea...
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> RFC3253 allows PUT and COPY (target resource) to be auto-versioned. 
>> That is, everytime you PUT to a URI, you may be -- as a side effect 
>> -- creating a new version (and the DeltaV live properties on the 
>> resource will reflect this). Can we still consider this idempotent. 
>> RFC3253bis should say something about this..
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 20:50:59 UTC