-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 141
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
digest: B.7. POST Response does not Reference the Request URI #2180
Comments
At the end of the day, what the spec needs to describe is what "Repr-Digest" applies to in general; in particular for a response to an unknown/new HTTP method. That algorithm can special-case existing methods, but it absolutely needs to answer it for the general case as well. |
The question is "which is the representation data" ? In this case, R-Digest would have been the same for a 201 response:
The text is in an example, so it is not normative.
That depends on the method semantic, that is expected to define which is the representation data. Since the representation data in HTTP depends on the method semantics and on the status code, IMHO the general behavior of R-Digest for an unknown method should be (in this case) 501 or 405. |
"is just the one related to the status of the request" - hm, no. It's whatever is in the response content, no? In this case, that happens to be content describing the status, but in general that's not necessarily true.
I really think the examples need more work to make sure that they do not create confusion instead of clarifying things. Even if they are not normative. |
Question: look at the request/response below:
|
yes, and yes.I think. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#section-6.4.2-5.6 |
I'm not sure I understand the role of Content-Location here. Are you saying things were different if C-L was not present?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: