- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:02:14 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-07-05 19:22, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-07-05 04:36, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Marked for incorporation in -20. >> ... > > -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1728> > > The list I have for P2 is: > > > +---------+------+------------+---------------+ > > | Method | Safe | Idempotent | Reference | > > +---------+------+------------+---------------+ > > | CONNECT | no | no | Section 2.3.8 | > > | DELETE | no | yes | Section 2.3.6 | > > | GET | yes | yes | Section 2.3.2 | > > | HEAD | yes | yes | Section 2.3.3 | > > | OPTIONS | yes | yes | Section 2.3.1 | > > | POST | no | no | Section 2.3.4 | > > | PUT | no | yes | Section 2.3.5 | > > | TRACE | yes | yes | Section 2.3.7 | > > +---------+------+------------+---------------+ > > Suggest to discuss the values for "CONNECT", while I start looking at > all these WebDAV methods... > > Best regards, Julian ...and here are the values for the other methods, with some inline comments: +-------------------+------+------------+---------------------------+ | Method Name | Safe | Idempotent | Reference | +-------------------+------+------------+---------------------------+ | ACL | no | yes | [RFC3744], Section 8.1 | | BASELINE-CONTROL | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 12.6 | | BIND | no | yes | [RFC5842], Section 4 | | CHECKIN | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 4.4 | | | | | and [RFC3253], Section | | | | | 9.4 | | CHECKOUT | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 4.3 | | | | | and [RFC3253], Section | | | | | 8.8 | | COPY | no | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.8 | | LABEL | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 8.2 | | LINK | no | | [RFC2068], Section | | | | | 19.6.1.2 | I honestly can't tell from the prose in RFC 2068, which isn't sufficient as definition. The same applies to UNLINK. | LOCK | no | no | [RFC4918], Section 9.10 | | MERGE | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 11.2 | | MKACTIVITY | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 13.5 | | MKCALENDAR | no | yes | [RFC4791], Section 5.3.1 | | MKCOL | no | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.3 | | MKREDIRECTREF | no | yes | [RFC4437], Section 6 | RFC 4437 claims that it's not idempotent, but I think the author was confused. Will complain to him. | MKWORKSPACE | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 6.3 | | MOVE | no | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.9 | | ORDERPATCH | no | yes | [RFC3648], Section 7 | | PATCH | no | no | [RFC5789], Section 2 | | PROPFIND | yes | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.1 | | PROPPATCH | no | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.2 | | REBIND | no | yes | [RFC5842], Section 6 | | REPORT | yes | yes | [RFC3253], Section 3.6 | | SEARCH | yes | yes | [RFC5323], Section 2 | | UNBIND | no | yes | [RFC5842], Section 5 | | UNCHECKOUT | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 4.5 | | UNLINK | no | | [RFC2068], Section | | | | | 19.6.1.3 | (see above) | UNLOCK | no | yes | [RFC4918], Section 9.11 | | UPDATE | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 7.1 | | UPDATEREDIRECTREF | no | yes | [RFC4437], Section 7 | | VERSION-CONTROL | no | yes | [RFC3253], Section 3.5 | +-------------------+------+------------+---------------------------+ I'll also ask Mr. DeltaV for advice on whether I got these right. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 18:02:48 UTC