- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:54:35 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
(FYI) The IESG wrote: > The IESG has approved the following document: > > - 'PATCH Method for HTTP ' > <draft-dusseault-http-patch-16.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an > IETF Working Group. > > The IESG contact person is Alexey Melnikov. > > A URL of this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-16.txt > > Technical Summary > > Several applications extending the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) > require a feature to do partial resource modification. This proposal > adds a new HTTP method, PATCH, to modify an existing HTTP resource in > a generic way. > > Working Group Summary > > This is not a Working Group document; rather, it is an Individual > Submission that is seeking IETF Consensus as an Standards Track RFC. > However, this document has been reviewed and discussed extensively > on the HTTPbis, WebDAV and Atom mailing lists. > > Document Quality > > The document has been reviewed extensively on the HTTPbis mailing > list over a long period of time, and no substantive issues have > arisen in the last few drafts. There has not yet been appreciable > implementation experience, although several vendors have expressed > interest. > > Personnel > > Mark Nottingham is the Document Shepherd for this document. > Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD. > > RFC Editor Notes > > In Section 2, change the last 2 sentences of the 4th paragraph to read: > > OLD: > Clients using this > kind of patch application SHOULD acquire a strong ETag [RFC2616] for > the resource to be modified, and use that ETag in the If-Match header > on the PATCH request to verify that the resource is still unchanged. > If a strong ETag is not available for a given resource, the client > can use If-Unmodified-Since as a less-reliable safeguard. > > NEW: > Clients using this kind of patch application SHOULD use a conditional > request such that the request will fail if the resource has been > updated since the client last accessed the resource. For example, > the client can use a strong ETag [RFC2616] in an If-Match header > on the PATCH request. > > In Section 2.1, change everything starting from the 3rd paragraph: > > OLD: > This example illustrates use of a hypothetical patch document on an > existing resource. The 204 response code is used because the > response does not have a body (a response with the 200 code would > have a body) but other success codes can be used if appropriate. > > Successful PATCH response to existing text file > > HTTP/1.1 204 No Content > Content-Location: /file.txt > ETag: "e0023aa4f" > > NEW: > This example illustrates use of a hypothetical patch document on an > existing resource. > > Successful PATCH response to existing text file: > > HTTP/1.1 204 No Content > Content-Location: /file.txt > ETag: "e0023aa4f" > > The 204 response code is used because the response does not > carry a message body (which a response with the 200 code would have). > Note that other success codes could be used as well. > > Futhermore, the ETag response header field contains the ETag for > the entity created by applying the PATCH, available at > http://www.example.com/file.txt, as indicated by the Content-Location > response header field. > > Please change the last paragraph of the Section 3.1 to read: > > OLD: > The Accept-Patch header specifies a comma separated listing of media- > types as defined by [RFC2616], Section 3.7. > > NEW: > The Accept-Patch header specifies a comma separated listing of media- > types (with optional parameters) as defined by [RFC2616], Section 3.7. > > Example: > > Accept-Patch: text/example;charset=utf-8 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 19:55:27 UTC