Re: safe PUT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jay Greenberg: "Lynx Client Code (UNIX/C only)"
• Previous message: Mary Ellen Zurko: "Re: Where should Digest go next?"

Larry Masinter:
>
>I also believe that there is sufficient negative
>reaction to Roy's proposal in the HTTP/1.1 draft to the '5 second
>delay' as to indicate that there is not 'rough consensus' on that
>particular design element.
>
>We've had a long discussion with various counter-proposals floated,
>but not much convergence. I'll ask all of you to decide between one of
>the following three alternatives (I can think of no others):
>
>- Are you interested in drafting a counter-proposal?

No.

>- Should PUT go into HTTP/1.1 as originally specified,

Yes, the two-phase send scheme with 5 second timeout should be taken
out.  Not only for PUT, but also for other methods like POST.

> but with a warning as to its unreliability?

The warning should not be about unreliability, but about _limitations_
in the PUT semantics that make the implementation of certain types of
reliable services by using only one PUT impossible.

The proposed two-phase PUT does not offer a clear enough improvement
over the limitations of the current one-phase PUT scheme.  Without
such a clear improvement, we cannot to burden software authors with
the requirement to provide implementations of the new scheme.

>- Should PUT be removed from HTTP/1.1?

I don't care much either way.  If it is removed, then the reason
should not be that it is unreliable, but that is is not currently used
in any standard way.

Koen.

• Next message: Jay Greenberg: "Lynx Client Code (UNIX/C only)"
• Previous message: Mary Ellen Zurko: "Re: Where should Digest go next?"