That would be fine with me. Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 09/18/2004 03:17:51 PM: > > 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? > > So should we state this in the BIND spec? Such as: > > BIND > > This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1). > > REBIND > > This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1). > > UNBIND > > This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1). > > > Feedback appreciated, > > Julian > > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2004 02:20:52 UTC