- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 07:25:34 +0100
- To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-httpbis-method-registrations.all@tools.ietf.org
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iesg@ietf.org
On 2013-11-03 16:01, S Moonesamy wrote: > ... > The document registers those Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) methods > which have been defined in standards-track RFCs before the IANA HTTP > Method Registry was established. The methods listed in the document is > generally used for WebDAV. > > Some of the HTTP methods are extensions to HTTP. The (new) registry All of them (for some value of "extension"). > does not provide any information to distinguish between a method which > is part of basic HTTP features and a method which is part of an > extension to HTTP. There is no such distinction. > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: > > I suggest having the HTTP method names being registered in Section 3 > instead of Appendix A as the document is not of much use with that main > information. Already done in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2444>. > Nits: > > The LINK and UNLINK HTTP methods are defined in RFC 2068 which was > obsoleted by RFC 2616. I gather that they are listed so that the > method name is not reused. They are listed in order to provide a reference to the best description that we have today. > Editorial nits are not included in this review. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 06:26:11 UTC