W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: #545 requirement on implementing methods according to their semantics

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:54:05 +0100
Message-ID: <52E7A86D.5090600@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2014-01-27 13:51, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-01-03 10:38, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-25.html#rfc.section.4.1>:
>>
>>
>>
>> "All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD. All
>> other methods are OPTIONAL; when implemented, a server MUST implement
>> the above methods according to the semantics defined for them in Section
>> 4.3."
>>
>> This ignores methods not defined in Part 2. How about:
>>
>> "All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD. All
>> other methods are OPTIONAL; when implemented, a server MUST implement
>> the above methods according to the semantics defined in their relevant
>> specifications (as listed in the HTTP Method Registry maintained by
>> IANA, described in Section 8.1.)".
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>
> Roy comments in the ticket
> <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/545>:
>
>> Hmm, this is actually covered by p1 2.5 Conformance and Error Handling:
>>
>>    A recipient MUST interpret a received protocol element according to
>>    the semantics defined for it by this specification, including
>>    extensions to this specification, unless the recipient has determined
>>    (through experience or configuration) that the sender incorrectly
>>    implements what is implied by those semantics.
>>
>> Perhaps we can just delete the last bit above:
>>
>>     All general-purpose servers MUST support the methods GET and HEAD.
>> All other methods are OPTIONAL. ; when implemented, a server MUST
>> implement the above methods according to the semantics defined for
>> them in Section 4.3.
>
> (so the proposal is to remove the "; when implemented, a server MUST
> implement the above methods according to the semantics defined for them
> in Section 4.3").
>
> I'm happy with this change, as it removes a statement that potentially
> causes confusion.
> ...

Seeing no objections: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2601.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 12:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC