- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:40:41 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Julian Reschke wrote: > On 12.10.2010 23:51, Nathan wrote: >> ... >>> Alternatives are LINK/UNLINK >>> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.1>) >> >> What's the status of the LINK and UNLINK methods? I'm aware PATCH has >> been put through standards track under RFC 5789, is there an effort to >> do the same for LINK and UNLINK? > > Nothing I'm aware of, but you're not the first one to ask. > >> I guess what I'm saying is that since 2068 has been obsoleted by 2616 >> which doesn't define them, and since we're now approaching HTTP-Bis >> which again doesn't define them, is it still 'ok' to use LINK and UNLINK >> when the network scale awareness (perhaps) isn't there? (caches may not >> be invalidated etc) > > Of course it's ok. LINK/UNLINK continue to be defined by a Proposed > Standards. > >> As an aside, would there be scope to redefine them in HTTP-Bis, or would >> this need done under separate RFC as done with PATCH - etc, sure you >> follow my line of questioning :) > > I think this would require a new RFC. > > That being said, I'd like to encourage you to seriously consider the > other alternative I mentioned (PROPPATCH). Will do, and thanks for your continued help Julian, Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 07:41:40 UTC