Changeset 1160
- Timestamp:
- 10/03/11 19:50:18 (11 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html
r1158 r1160 2725 2725 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">Clarify definition of POST. (<a href="#POST" id="rfc.xref.POST.3" title="POST">Section 7.5</a>) 2726 2726 </p> 2727 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.3">Take over definition of CONNECT method from <a href="#RFC2817" id="rfc.xref.RFC2817.3"><cite title="Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1">[RFC2817]</cite></a>. (<a href="#CONNECT" id="rfc.xref.CONNECT.3" title="CONNECT">Section 7.9</a>) 2728 </p> 2729 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.4">Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are safe to automatically redirect, and further that the 2727 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.3">Remove requirement to handle all Content-* header fields; ban use of Content-Range with PUT. (<a href="#PUT" id="rfc.xref.PUT.3" title="PUT">Section 7.6</a>) 2728 </p> 2729 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.4">Take over definition of CONNECT method from <a href="#RFC2817" id="rfc.xref.RFC2817.3"><cite title="Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1">[RFC2817]</cite></a>. (<a href="#CONNECT" id="rfc.xref.CONNECT.3" title="CONNECT">Section 7.9</a>) 2730 </p> 2731 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.5">Failed to consider that there are many other request methods that are safe to automatically redirect, and further that the 2730 2732 user agent is able to make that determination based on the request method semantics. (Sections <a href="#status.301" id="rfc.xref.status.301.3" title="301 Moved Permanently">8.3.2</a>, <a href="#status.302" id="rfc.xref.status.302.3" title="302 Found">8.3.3</a> and <a href="#status.307" id="rfc.xref.status.307.4" title="307 Temporary Redirect">8.3.8</a>) 2731 2733 </p> 2732 <p id="rfc.section.A.p. 5">Deprecate 305 Use Proxy status code, because user agents did not implement it. It used to indicate that the target resource2734 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.6">Deprecate 305 Use Proxy status code, because user agents did not implement it. It used to indicate that the target resource 2733 2735 must be accessed through the proxy given by the Location field. The Location field gave the URI of the proxy. The recipient 2734 2736 was expected to repeat this single request via the proxy. (<a href="#status.305" id="rfc.xref.status.305.3" title="305 Use Proxy">Section 8.3.6</a>) 2735 2737 </p> 2736 <p id="rfc.section.A.p. 6">Define status 426 (Upgrade Required) (this was incorporated from <a href="#RFC2817" id="rfc.xref.RFC2817.4"><cite title="Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1">[RFC2817]</cite></a>). (<a href="#status.426" id="rfc.xref.status.426.3" title="426 Upgrade Required">Section 8.4.19</a>)2737 </p> 2738 <p id="rfc.section.A.p. 7">Reclassify "Allow" as response header field, removing the option to specify it in a PUT request. Relax the server requirement2738 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.7">Define status 426 (Upgrade Required) (this was incorporated from <a href="#RFC2817" id="rfc.xref.RFC2817.4"><cite title="Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1">[RFC2817]</cite></a>). (<a href="#status.426" id="rfc.xref.status.426.3" title="426 Upgrade Required">Section 8.4.19</a>) 2739 </p> 2740 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.8">Reclassify "Allow" as response header field, removing the option to specify it in a PUT request. Relax the server requirement 2739 2741 on the contents of the Allow header field and remove requirement on clients to always trust the header field value. (<a href="#header.allow" id="rfc.xref.header.allow.4" title="Allow">Section 9.1</a>) 2740 2742 </p> 2741 <p id="rfc.section.A.p. 8">Correct syntax of Location header field to allow URI references (including relative references and fragments), as referred2743 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.9">Correct syntax of Location header field to allow URI references (including relative references and fragments), as referred 2742 2744 symbol "absoluteURI" wasn't what was expected, and add some clarifications as to when use of fragments would not be appropriate. 2743 2745 (<a href="#header.location" id="rfc.xref.header.location.4" title="Location">Section 9.4</a>) 2744 2746 </p> 2745 <p id="rfc.section.A.p. 9">Restrict Max-Forwards header field to OPTIONS and TRACE (previously, extension methods could have used it as well). (<a href="#header.max-forwards" id="rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.5" title="Max-Forwards">Section 9.5</a>)2746 </p> 2747 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1 0">Allow Referer field value of "about:blank" as alternative to not specifying it. (<a href="#header.referer" id="rfc.xref.header.referer.3" title="Referer">Section 9.6</a>)2748 </p> 2749 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1 1">In the description of the Server header field, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated2747 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.10">Restrict Max-Forwards header field to OPTIONS and TRACE (previously, extension methods could have used it as well). (<a href="#header.max-forwards" id="rfc.xref.header.max-forwards.5" title="Max-Forwards">Section 9.5</a>) 2748 </p> 2749 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.11">Allow Referer field value of "about:blank" as alternative to not specifying it. (<a href="#header.referer" id="rfc.xref.header.referer.3" title="Referer">Section 9.6</a>) 2750 </p> 2751 <p id="rfc.section.A.p.12">In the description of the Server header field, the Via field was described as a SHOULD. The requirement was and is stated 2750 2752 correctly in the description of the Via header field in <a href="p1-messaging.html#header.via" title="Via">Section 9.9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.38"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>. (<a href="#header.server" id="rfc.xref.header.server.4" title="Server">Section 9.8</a>) 2751 2753 </p> … … 3071 3073 in some cases) 3072 3074 </li> 3075 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79</a>>: "Content-* vs. PUT" 3076 </li> 3073 3077 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/88">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/88</a>>: "205 Bodies" 3074 3078 </li> 3079 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102</a>>: "Understanding Content-* on non-PUT requests" 3080 </li> 3081 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103</a>>: "Content-*" 3082 </li> 3083 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/104">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/104</a>>: "Header type defaulting" 3084 </li> 3085 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/112">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/112</a>>: "PUT - 'store under' vs 'store at'" 3086 </li> 3075 3087 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/137">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/137</a>>: "duplicate ABNF for Reason-Phrase" 3076 3088 </li> 3089 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/180">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/180</a>>: "Note special status of Content-* prefix in header registration procedures" 3090 </li> 3077 3091 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/203">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/203</a>>: "Max-Forwards vs extension methods" 3078 3092 </li> … … 3086 3100 </li> 3087 3101 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/225">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/225</a>>: "PUT side effect: invalidation or just stale?" 3102 </li> 3103 <li> <<a href="http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/267">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/267</a>>: "clarify PUT semantics'" 3088 3104 </li> 3089 3105 <li> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/275">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/275</a>>: "duplicate ABNF for 'Method'" … … 3243 3259 <li>OPTIONS <a href="#rfc.xref.OPTIONS.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.m.1"><b>7.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.OPTIONS.2">9.5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.OPTIONS.3">10.1</a></li> 3244 3260 <li>POST <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.m.4"><b>7.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.2">10.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.3">A</a></li> 3245 <li>PUT <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.m.5"><b>7.6</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.2">10.1</a> </li>3261 <li>PUT <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.m.5"><b>7.6</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.2">10.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.3">A</a></li> 3246 3262 <li>TRACE <a href="#rfc.xref.TRACE.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.m.7"><b>7.8</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.TRACE.2">9.5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.TRACE.3">10.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.TRACE.4">11.1</a></li> 3247 3263 </ul> … … 3322 3338 </li> 3323 3339 <li>POST method <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.p.1"><b>7.5</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.2">10.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.POST.3">A</a></li> 3324 <li>PUT method <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.p.2"><b>7.6</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.2">10.1</a> </li>3340 <li>PUT method <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.p.2"><b>7.6</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.2">10.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.PUT.3">A</a></li> 3325 3341 </ul> 3326 3342 </li> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml
r1158 r1160 3533 3533 <organization>Linden Lab</organization> 3534 3534 </author> 3535 <author initials='J.' surname='Snell' fullname='J. Snell'> 3536 <organization /> 3537 </author> 3535 <author initials='J.' surname='Snell' fullname='J. Snell' /> 3538 3536 <date year='2010' month='March' /> 3539 3537 </front> … … 3552 3550 Clarify definition of POST. 3553 3551 (<xref target="POST"/>) 3552 </t> 3553 <t> 3554 Remove requirement to handle all Content-* header fields; ban use of 3555 Content-Range with PUT. 3556 (<xref target="PUT"/>) 3554 3557 </t> 3555 3558 <t> … … 4131 4134 </t> 4132 4135 <t> 4136 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/79"/>: 4137 "Content-* vs. PUT" 4138 </t> 4139 <t> 4133 4140 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/88"/>: 4134 4141 "205 Bodies" 4135 4142 </t> 4136 4143 <t> 4144 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/102"/>: 4145 "Understanding Content-* on non-PUT requests" 4146 </t> 4147 <t> 4148 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/103"/>: 4149 "Content-*" 4150 </t> 4151 <t> 4152 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/104"/>: 4153 "Header type defaulting" 4154 </t> 4155 <t> 4156 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/112"/>: 4157 "PUT - 'store under' vs 'store at'" 4158 </t> 4159 <t> 4137 4160 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/137"/>: 4138 4161 "duplicate ABNF for Reason-Phrase" 4162 </t> 4163 <t> 4164 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/180"/>: 4165 "Note special status of Content-* prefix in header registration procedures" 4139 4166 </t> 4140 4167 <t> … … 4164 4191 </t> 4165 4192 <t> 4193 <eref target="http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/267"/>: 4194 "clarify PUT semantics'" 4195 </t> 4196 <t> 4166 4197 <eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/275"/>: 4167 4198 "duplicate ABNF for 'Method'"
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.