IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-jennings-app-dns-update-00

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 08 July 2008 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054743A6982; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2203B3A6982 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.13 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VXs2ZUB3YhVR for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E8B3A68FA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id F37C81C010F; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9D81C00FD; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E106458ECCA; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:47:34 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:47:34 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Subject: Re: draft-jennings-app-dns-update-00
Message-ID: <20080708164734.GA31957@nic.fr>
References: <20080707024501.AE0A33A6947@core3.amsl.com> <89A47DA0-8E2F-4247-A21F-E9B1777A0856@cisco.com> <02c801c8e0bb$3de71640$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <e9dffd640807080941w51a5ddd2kd88f8b2d00bc8bd9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e9dffd640807080941w51a5ddd2kd88f8b2d00bc8bd9@mail.gmail.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:41:44PM -0400,
 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> PUT seems the right method to use for updating existing records,
> while POST seems appropriate for adding new records.

That's not what RFC 2616 says.

   The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is
   reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a
   POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed
   entity.
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email