Subject: rfc2518bis Safe Methods vs Redirection issue

From: Jim Luther <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:02:43 -0700

In the HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> 
there is a section titled "Safe Methods vs Redirection" which concludes 
with "It would also be helpful for each of the method definition 
sections to specifically define whether or not the method is safe. 
OPTIONS, GET, and HEAD are all safe in RFC 2616. HTTP extensions like 
WebDAV define additional safe methods."

I don't see anywhere in rfc2518 or rfc2518bis where WebDAV methods are 
defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which 
WebDAV methods are safe and which are unsafe.

In my code, I'm assuming PROPFIND is a safe method and that PROPPATCH, 
MKCOL, COPY, MOVE, LOCK, and UNLOCK are unsafe methods by the 
definitions in rfc2616, section 9.1.1 "Safe Methods". Does that sound 
right to the working group?

- Jim

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:09:53 +0200

Jim Luther wrote:

> defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which WebDAV 
> methods are safe and which are unsafe.
> 

Sounds right to me.

This a probably a to-do for the issues lists for RFC3253, RFC3648 and 
RFC3744 as well.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:17:51 +0200

> right to the working group?

So should we state this in the BIND spec? Such as:

BIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).

REBIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).

UNBIND

This method is unsafe and idempotent (see RFC2616, section 9.1).

Feedback appreciated,

Julian

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:19:54 -0400

That would be fine with me.

Cheers,
Geoff

> > defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which 
WebDAV

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:02:21 +0200

> That would be fine with me.

OK,

done: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.specify_safeness_and_idempotence>.

I'll make a similar change to the REDIRECT draft.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 10:04:13 -0700

I agree -- they all should be unsafe but idempotent.

Lisa

On Sep 18, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Jim Luther wrote:
>> In the HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata 
>> <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata> there is a section titled "Safe 
>> Methods vs Redirection" which concludes with "It would also be 
>> helpful for each of the method definition sections to specifically 
>> define whether or not the method is safe. OPTIONS, GET, and HEAD are 
>> all safe in RFC 2616. HTTP extensions like WebDAV define additional 
>> safe methods."
>> I don't see anywhere in rfc2518 or rfc2518bis where WebDAV methods 
>> are defined as safe or unsafe. rfc2518bis should probably state which 
>> In my code, I'm assuming PROPFIND is a safe method and that 
>> PROPPATCH, MKCOL, COPY, MOVE, LOCK, and UNLOCK are unsafe methods by 
>> the definitions in rfc2616, section 9.1.1 "Safe Methods". Does that 
>> sound right to the working group?
>