IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> Tue, 08 July 2008 17:00 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 6068D3A6AA5; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:00:20 -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 15E0B3A6810 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wMzllyX7Z7dL for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C413A6909 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so562808yxg.49 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.145.18 with SMTP id s18mr8159646wad.26.1215536425241; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.115.60.5 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <e9dffd640807081000l57b2ca67l96d0377cff849b43@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:00:25 -0400
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: draft-jennings-app-dns-update-00
In-Reply-To: <20080708164734.GA31957@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20080707024501.AE0A33A6947@core3.amsl.com> <89A47DA0-8E2F-4247-A21F-E9B1777A0856@cisco.com> <02c801c8e0bb$3de71640$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <e9dffd640807080941w51a5ddd2kd88f8b2d00bc8bd9@mail.gmail.com> <20080708164734.GA31957@nic.fr>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8eae878e850d093e
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 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> 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.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email