- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:04:13 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Jim Luther <luther.j@apple.com>
I agree -- they all should be unsafe but idempotent. Lisa On Sep 18, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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 Monday, 20 September 2004 17:04:39 UTC