Re: Last Call: draft-dusseault-http-patch (PATCH Method for HTTP) to Proposed Standard

["Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>]

This draft places unreasonable restriction on servers about processing  
requests. Specifically, in §2.2,

[[
Concurrent modification: When a server receives multiple concurrent  
requests to modify a resource, those requests SHOULD be queued and  
processed in the order in which they are received. If a server is  
incapable of queuing concurrent requests, all subsequent requests  
SHOULD be rejected with a 409 (Conflict) until the first modification  
request is complete.
]]

RFC2616 describes the above status code (409) but not in the context  
of a particular type of HTTP request. I fail to see why this draft has  
mandated specific error codes and specific server behavior in response  
to certain requests. It curtails server behavior without a good reason.

Nikunj

On Oct 27, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> (FYI)
>
> The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to  
> > consider the following document:
> > - 'PATCH Method for HTTP '
> >   <draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to  
> > the
> > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2009-11-24. Exceptionally, comments  
> > may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain  
> > the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > The file can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt
> > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11143&rfc_flag=0
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce