- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:14:18 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28/02/2008, at 7:47 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> ... >> * There is no existing normative text for (b); OPTIONS lists Allow >> as an example, nothing more AFAICT. Expanding it to a SHOULD or >> MUST seems too aggressive, and software that depends upon it today >> is already taking liberties (unless a specific overlay protocol >> like WebDAV specifies otherwise). > > ... > > Hm. From <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.9.2.p.6 > >: > > "A 200 response SHOULD include any header fields that indicate > optional features implemented by the server and applicable to that > resource (e.g., Allow), possibly including extensions not defined by > this specification." My bad - was looking at the wrong section when I wrote that. so, 405 MUST, OPTIONS implicit SHOULD. > So it seems to me that is really *is* a SHOULD level requirement for > include "Allow". Well, it's an example of how to fulfil a SHOULD-level requirement. Almost the same, but not quite. >> ... >> "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server >> at the time of each request." >> to >> "The actual set of allowed methods is defined by the origin server >> at the time of each request, and may not necessarily include all >> (or any) methods that the server would actually allow in a request >> if presented." >> That's my proposal. >> ... > > Me not happy. From <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.7.p.5 > >: > > "This field cannot prevent a client from trying other methods. > However, the indications given by the Allow header field value > SHOULD be followed. The actual set of allowed methods is defined by > the origin server at the time of each request." > > So, if a server returns an incomplete list of methods -- for > instance, not including "PATCH", and the client actually follows > *this* requirement, then it wouldn't even try PATCH. It's a SHOULD; there may be legitimate reasons for it not to be followed. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:14:39 UTC