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(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, comments
may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf