IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] (no subject)

Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 13 December 2012 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853E021F87C8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kIsIpD24Uzom for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7319B21F87B3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hm9so3883553wib.13 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zvwrf23j4lEJbK7DTFk/Dyr1Wm+GqBYk9JqzqFPJNPc=; b=tbbkagb/yAKtQ+PJsZR8PffIGUaAwkl3AsCioUA4+n//IALgMIQtGsX2w+165/oRcC g8/Nm4cWMQ0zSQGwrh6HVJx2gOkE85XDkIM0+SUHCuX5gys9pa55ntzQTVCU7ct3N/xZ zmBCwa4EjZtx6LAZYKTWYpx0MNeEGG9GPiEIUWsU2Y174cVrb9YfGVV160s8rReFgXcc PHUNt6TsiSn5oX8rfl4OIW/N6Jg2f0iQW/6BSEcHgtZze24T7MPi8RE63yhu8k/CqN1t yy7hMSZGV5o0gZ37iHWZauJNrkCk9kU5jwyCrcqa7hxU25D0rTY4kv1gp0wX8VxSGHY5 bCJQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.23.37 with SMTP id j5mr7281480wjf.28.1355395116538; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.1.101 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAChr6SzSFjhUfDciWMVTJ7jEYiOsFaG8ShYVB8Rs__kt8P0aKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b414e8c739c1e04d0b9845c"
Subject: [apps-discuss] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:38:38 -0000

James Manger wrote:
> For the same reasons, I also think it is important to be able to do:
"remove this object element
> (regardless of whether or not it exists)". With draft-08 "remove" causes
an error if the element
> does not exist.

Oh, I think that text is buggy. Specifically, the text "the target location
MUST exist" is unsuitably ambiguous for a MUST requirement, and needlessly
ties client state to server state.

If a server receives two PATCH requests that remove the same element,
against ETags that are either the same or non-conflicting, there's no
problem.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email