- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:37:06 -0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "drafts-lastcall@iana.org" <drafts-lastcall@iana.org>, "httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
It should be registered as safe and idempotent (YES to both). ....Roy > On Jan 13, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Pearl, > > I assume that the "NOT OK" refers to the need for expert review. Or > are you concerned about us requesting a specific number (421) for the > last action? > > On 13 January 2015 at 09:50, Pearl Liang via RT > <drafts-lastcall@iana.org> wrote: >> a new method will be registered as follows: >> >> Method Name: PRI >> Safe: No >> Idempotent: No >> Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] >> >> Question: just to double check if the new requested method "PRI" is an abbreviation. >> It appears that RFC7231 does not require a full name. > > That is correct. Method names don't require a full name. In this > case, a full name could be confusing, since this is a defensive > registration only. >
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 23:37:31 UTC