Re: Changing PUT's idempotency after the fact [was: WebDav methods and idempotency] from Jamie Lokier on 2005-03-16 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2005)

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:30:32 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050316213032.GB5965@mail.shareable.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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.

Hopefully there's an ETag and such clients use it, in these scenarios.

-- Jamie

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 21:30:37 UTC