- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:18 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> We have a similar situation around request bodies -- >>> A message-body MUST NOT be included in a request if the >>> specification of the request method (Section 2 of [Part2]) >>> explicitly disallows an entity-body in requests. >> What I'd like to do in both cases is make it more apparent that >> the list of exceptions is closed, by not predicating it on an >> external MUST NOT. > > That's a good point. > >> In the case for requests, I think the entire sentence disappears, >> because we have not specified any method that disallow request >> bodies (unless one of the many WebDAV methods places this >> requirement on requests, and even then...). > > Nope, WebDAV doesn't do that. > > From RFC2616 I see two potential candidates: (1) TRACE (which uses > the same terminology as the 205 status that started this thread: > "MUST NOT include an entity"), and (2) CONNECT (?). There are no candidates. Any change to the message parsing algorithm would require a major bump in HTTP version. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2009 09:58:54 UTC