Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

My .02 - 

I think we should list safety and idempotency, at the most. 

Including other information is too simplistic; e.g., cacheability depends on a LOT more than the method, capturing how the method affects cacheability in a table is problematic (see: POST).

I'd also be OK with removing all such information, because people really need to read the WHOLE method definition.

Cheers,


On 03/07/2012, at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> FYI, new issue as per recent discussion.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> Resent-From: trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org
>> From: "httpbis" <trac+httpbis@trac.tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry
>> Date: 3 July 2012 4:48:23 PM AEST
>> To: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@tools.ietf.org, mnot@pobox.com
>> Reply-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> 
>> #364: Capturing more information in the method registry
>> --------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
>> Reporter:  mnot@        |      Owner:  draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics@
>>    Type:  design        |     Status:  new
>> Priority:  normal        |  Milestone:  unassigned
>> Component:  p2-semantics  |   Severity:  Active WG Document
>> Keywords:                |     Origin:
>> --------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
>> We established the method registry in #72, and considered recording
>> idempotency there. However, we closed that issue without a definitive
>> answer, because we were still discussing the definition of idempotency.
>> 
>> Should we add idempotency to the method registry? Anything else?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/364>
>> httpbis <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>
>> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:38:03 UTC