- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:56:22 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Looks good from here, and yes, this should be a WG item. OK, will prepare that as draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations. Publication will have to wait until draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-04 is ready. > Q: any more thoughts about whether to add things like safety, > idempotence to the registry? I'm in favor of adding stuff that would be important to know in an implementation, such as: "is this method safe" (so can I retry, and can I automatically follow redirects?). For "safety" this is pretty clear, for idempotency I'm not totally sure (yet). Furthermore: what about cacheability? In WebDAV space, I see many specs making statements about the cacheability of a method result. Is this a good idea? After all, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.13.4> states: "Unless specifically constrained by a cache-control (Section 14.9) directive, a caching system MAY always store a successful response (see Section 13.8) as a cache entry, MAY return it without validation if it is fresh, and MAY return it after successful validation." So if a (success) method result is known not to be cacheable, the server must send it with "Cache-Control: no-cache" anyway, right? Proposed next steps: - add "safeness" to the method registration template (Part 2) - move proposed initial registration into a WG draft BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 11:57:07 UTC