PATCH Method for HTTP
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
(Alexey Melnikov) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Section 1 A new method is necessary to improve interoperability and prevent errors. This is a bit strong. The new method seems to be desirable to increase the functionality and improve performance. --- Section 4.1 The 'Accept-Patch' response header should be added to the permanent registry (see [RFC3864]). Would be nice to name the registry more precisely. IANA has this as the 'Permanent Message Header Field Names' registry.
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
I guess that the RFC Editor will take care of this - Appendix B - Changes needs to be taken out at publication.