Re: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard



This draft places unreasonable restriction on servers about processing requests. Specifically, in §2.2,

[[
Concurrent modification: When a server receives multiple concurrent requests to modify a resource, those requests SHOULD be queued and processed in the order in which they are received. If a server is incapable of queuing concurrent requests, all subsequent requests SHOULD be rejected with a 409 (Conflict) until the first modification request is complete.
]]

RFC2616 describes the above status code (409) but not in the context of a particular type of HTTP request. I fail to see why this draft has mandated specific error codes and specific server behavior in response to certain requests. It curtails server behavior without a good reason.

Nikunj

On Oct 27, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:


(FYI)

The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document:
- 'PATCH Method for HTTP '
  <draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11143&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce



Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.