RE: rfc2518 issue: LOCK_NULL_STATUS_CREATION

> Actually Jim wasn't disagree'ing with you on what we propose here.  He
was
> additionally proposing that the first PUT after the resource is created
*also*
> return 201.    I don't think that issue is on the issues list.   If Jim
advocates it again,
> we can put it on the list.

I'd object to such a proposition since it contradicts a RFC2616 SHOULD
requirement for modifying an exiting resource with PUT.

Regards,
Tim

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 05:05:49 UTC