- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:09:53 +0200
- To: Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Jim Luther wrote: > > In the HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> > there is a section titled "Safe Methods vs Redirection" which concludes > with "It would also be helpful for each of the method definition > sections to specifically define whether or not the method is safe. > OPTIONS, GET, and HEAD are all safe in RFC 2616. HTTP extensions like > WebDAV define additional safe methods." > > I don't see anywhere in rfc2518 or rfc2518bis where WebDAV methods are > defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which WebDAV > methods are safe and which are unsafe. > > In my code, I'm assuming PROPFIND is a safe method and that PROPPATCH, > MKCOL, COPY, MOVE, LOCK, and UNLOCK are unsafe methods by the > definitions in rfc2616, section 9.1.1 "Safe Methods". Does that sound > right to the working group? Sounds right to me. This a probably a to-do for the issues lists for RFC3253, RFC3648 and RFC3744 as well. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 16:10:33 UTC