PATCH Method for HTTP
RFC 5789

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

Comment (2009-12-01)
No email
send info
Section 1
   A new method is necessary to improve interoperability and prevent

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

Comment (2009-12-03)
No email
send info
I guess that the RFC Editor will take care of this - Appendix B - Changes needs to be taken out at publication.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) Recuse