W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: [IANA #801638] Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:37:06 -0800
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>
Message-Id: <A7C5E2CC-58E2-479E-88C6-60F243921465@gbiv.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC