- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:38:14 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
On 08.04.2009 14:52, Julian Reschke wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Is this just a matter of s/allowed/supported/ in the definition of 405? > > Yes. > > That would make the definition of 405 consistent with the definition of > the Allow header, which currently says: > > "The response-header field "Allow" lists the set of methods advertised > as supported by the resource identified by the request-target. The > purpose of this field is strictly to inform the recipient of valid > methods associated with the resource. An Allow header field MUST be > present in a 405 (Method Not Allowed) response." -- > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-06.html#rfc.section.9.1> > > > That would still leave the reason phrase and the *name* of the "Allow" > header confusing, but we'll probably have to live with that. > > BR, Julian Proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/146/> This makes the default reason phrase for 405 "Method Not Supported", and also replaces "allowed" by "supported" in the context of 405/Allow. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 12:38:49 UTC