Link: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/27
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/13f8f5c91d2a2ecbf43cb27e25914e3b@mnot.net
Component: p2-semantics
It *appears* that RFC3253 changes the idempotency of PUT; is this allowed? RFC3253 doesn't update or obsolete 2616...
I can see a situation where a 3253-naive client decides to retry a timed-out PUT (after all, it's idempotent) and gets some side effects it didn't bargain for.
Discussed during the Prague meeting, see < http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action10 >: "Loosen definition of Idempotency as per Roy." -- See < http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/7387 >: Just ignore the definition of idempotent in RFC 2616. Anything specified in HTTP that defines how the server shall implement the semantics of an interface method is wrong, by definition. What matters is the effect on the interface as expected by the client, not what actually happens on the server to implement that effect.