Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611D521F85D2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:59:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ue1fmjjMH3xm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:59:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C349821F85B9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:59:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Rv9uc-0006rF-0q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:58:26 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Rv9uQ-0006qH-99 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:58:14 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Rv9tS-0005CN-0p for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:57:38 +0000
Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so577873wib.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:54:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d+3LcPil1K4PoheNAEeqaW79srvodhynunAX3g/vzBQ=; b=sWO+XsoYQBNKKTEJ74MjcJB9JXyFsVxdOSBzlzbhOR2DNPOX2WrdUq3YayWCmnf2x+ rwELkH5ZYSmab8x/KhOWj5zTRl6iz2SzHQxslBP99MB2xsEEuNDLEu/DPNb/yHvDDnQt WfgYiuTGCwk/DuXMDZNmZ0s9aM+Pb+kEgcGQI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.109.198 with SMTP id hu6mr27464231wib.16.1328716448272; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.86.8 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 07:54:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4a61319e45bc884f838b6251aa77ef54@treenet.co.nz>
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com> <FF3263CC845E37A2C52BA166@vp0101wa-dhcp96.apple.com> <4a61319e45bc884f838b6251aa77ef54@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:54:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbduOzaRbUAEw3rWcb_NE6k9fUGa2bW1CSE0i+A3pnmTRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.171; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Rv9tS-0005CN-0p e00238b3410af0e4212db95136bb7763
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbduOzaRbUAEw3rWcb_NE6k9fUGa2bW1CSE0i+A3pnmTRw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12396
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Rv9uc-0006rF-0q@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:58:26 +0000

Yes, I can add that into the example.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Can you clarify the meaning of an ETag header returned in the
>> response to a PUT with a Prefer:return-representation header. Would
>> that ETag refer to the resource whose representation is being
>> returned?
>
>
> If it does not something is badly broken. HTTPbis part 4 section 2.3:
> "
> 2.3. ETag
>
>   The ETag header field provides the current entity-tag for the
>   selected representation.
>
> "
>
>> If so, could we please include ETag in the example. If not,
>> then we really need a way to get the actual ETag for the returned
>> representation - otherwise Prefer:return-representation is not that
>> useful.
>
>
> +1.
>
> AYJ
>