Subject: Semantics of extension methods

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:48:39 +0200

Part 2, Section 7 states:

"The set of common methods for HTTP/1.1 is defined below. Although this 
set can be expanded, additional methods cannot be assumed to share the 
same semantics for separately extended clients and servers." -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-07.html#rfc.section.7>

Now that we indeed have a method registry, is this still true?

BR, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:37:40 +0200

> Now that we indeed have a method registry, is this still true?

The risk is smaller, but still present to some extent during transition.
Over time it will disappear entirely.

So I would say we don't need to state this any longer.

Regards
Henrik

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:44:27 +0200

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...

Or we could state the obvious: using an extension that is not registered 
can cause confusion if multiple independent extensions pick the same name.

BR, Julian

---

From: Henrik Nordstrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:25:52 +0200

> can cause confusion if multiple independent extensions pick the same name.

I assumed that's already understood from the text. Was more concerned
about the risk that there is extensions being used used which isn't
registered today and that future extensions collide with those.

Regards
Henrik