Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
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.
...
Indeed.
I think this is one of these requirements that would get ignored in
practice when it makes sense (for instance, if the patch request has the
semantics of "append a line of text to a log resource").
It would be better to rewrite this things in terms of advice what a
server might do, not as a normative requirement (or, not to mention it
at all).
Nikunj: you really should include the mailing list.
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf