Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)
Foteos Macrides (MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu)
Mon, 07 Oct 1996 13:34:21 -0500 (EST)
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> wrote:
>I have to admit that at this point I'm confused about how to handle
>the redo-safe: proposal.
>
>What about if you write it up as a separate internet draft?
>That would let us process it as an independent item.
I don't know if this merits a separate ID. Here's my suggestion.
That an optional boolean reply header be added to the protocol:
Safe: yes | no
which applies only to methods that send content with the request. It's
semantics would be "This content as a subordinate to the Request-URI
(does not | indeed does) cause side effects for which the UA will be held
accountable." The header would be optional and current default assumptions
about a method's safety would apply in it's absence. UAs could use this
information to regulate their confirmation requests and/or warnings, and
their disposition of the content.
Fote
=========================================================================
Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
=========================================================================