Re: [apps-discuss] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-wilde-accept-post-00.txt
Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Tue, 30 July 2013 16:49 UTC
Return-Path: <mark@coactus.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 BE05621F92A5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwaQFkPXifXH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com (mail-pb0-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9735911E821F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rp16so6248220pbb.14 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=km+95lNPOQ1Dx1YJRvZIWeZHRa/pm0w5b4Le35eHYTo=; b=fQsqaA4Ucu0UWRCTUbmt1ohGYz87r/87HGVKf9ja2tpAYqt9PNG2W4/oB2eoQhchyk MHKUNCsH+dc6OqbiFzMqz0BFvC3QAXjlSJmEDghiuZFwbiyYhtsQdKvohk+nbrQUq7c6 k4smkpJNY7vfzwcUQ5DR57A+qYnV7jv0zhfmhreO68u0F9W0CZE/1x/1JCqHsBmpHlVj /+XWtD/aFM55KixSicm6m+kyJXA2vk/skPY1CIvNzvNTYdAqxrnjHzg26tc92qPryUoh ONTh7bU+Rmn36oncvk/qMyKyPv9HkMbI4hvzfdQm2EJ1g5RSiIp+Kqe2fmiwL2Ylvfaq rTXA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.69.8.65 with SMTP id di1mr67376904pbd.32.1375202973902; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@coactus.com
Received: by 10.70.75.74 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.212.223.132]
In-Reply-To: <51F62184.6080104@berkeley.edu>
References: <20130729071806.3189.90596.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51F62184.6080104@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:49:33 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PeOgt6wm63gRM_-zZyt_2g3dyF8
Message-ID: <CALcoZirf9TXoafJoOfT15DNucziERq7VvKonSD-fCam7-K=TQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmbh+Vzw4/Tg3PYWZuGz7Fhdcv0hm0cBwAuCbv8go2GbamH3d/U6hBfUn871inMDTwhWrHK
Cc: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>, LDP <public-ldp@w3.org>, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-wilde-accept-post-00.txt
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:49:48 -0000
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > hello. > > a new draft "The Accept-Post HTTP Header" has been published. it has been > developed within the W3C LDP working group > (http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page), but we thought it would promote > reuse of that header field if it were specified and registered separately. > any feedback is very welcome. in order to align with the timing of the W3C > LDP specifications, our goal is to move this draft forward as fast as we > can. Hey Erik. Is there any particular reason why this is POST-specific and not applicable to all methods that meaningfully accept a representation, like PUT or PATCH? Also, historically, as I'm sure you know, this information is typically provided by prior hypermedia transactions, e.g. an HTML form. The reasons for this over providing them from the resource itself directly (which I assume is the use case, it isn't clear) are primarily efficiency; that a separate round trip isn't required to gather that information. So I would expect that a mechanism such as yours would be used with legacy formats that don't support the ability to make such a declaration, but that doesn't appear to be the case for LDP. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Mark.