The Use of Post: A Response to draft-cohen-http-postal-00.txt
draft-debry-http-usepost-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Thomas N. Hastings , F. Don Wright , Harry Lewis , Scott A. Isaacson , Roger deBry , Carl Kugler , Stee Gebert | ||
| Last updated | 1998-02-24 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
A recent Internet Draft [1] argues that the common use of POST to proide a uniform method of passing blocks of data to an application, is being misused in the definition of new application protocols, such as the Internet Printing Protocol. Cohen et. al. argue that a new PUSH method be defined for this purpose. This Internet Draft argues that the existing POST method proides all of the required functionality for back end applications, such as Print, without sacrificing the leels of security that customers expect. More importantly, from the customer\022s point of iew, it does this without any impact to existing, installed network components.
Authors
Thomas N. Hastings
F. Don Wright
Harry Lewis
Scott A. Isaacson
Roger deBry
Carl Kugler
Stee Gebert
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)