Re: i24: Requiring Allow in 405 responses

My understanding is that a proposal along these lines* is acceptable,  
with one exception; Julian believes that if we do this, we should also  
relax the client-side requirement.

One way to do that would be to change "SHOULD"->"should" (i.e., make  
it advisory text, instead of a requirement).

Thoughts?


* In my mind,the "the"->"a" proposal is roughly equivalent to the  
proposed text below.



On 07/03/2008, at 2:33 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:

>> Exactly. We're not here to re-design Allow or come up with a better
>> mechanism; just to clarify what it means today.
>>
>> To reiterate, my proposal:
>>
>> > "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."
>>
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> - Rob


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

Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 04:36:02 UTC