> I think this may have been a case of RFC-2119 upcasing. I think the > intent of that original statement is informative in saying that servers > may (or may not) persist something on the server. Just because you > receive a POST request, it is possible to respond with a new URL in the > Location header with a 201 response. I might recommend that the upcasing
> and choice of words be reconsidered. Such as "Service providers MAY > maintain the created form in a persistent storage." but does that really > make it any better. Other suggestions welcome It looks like "MAY NOT" is not a keyword in RFC-2119 [1]. I propose we change "Service providers MAY NOT maintain the created form in a persistent storage. Clients SHOULD expect that after some elapsed time, a GET on these transient response URIs MAY result with response status codes of 404 (Not found) or a 3xx (Redirect)." to simply "After some elapsed time, service providers MAY respond with a 404 (Not Found) or 3xx (Redirect) to an HTTP GET request for these URIs." - Sam [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
