WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified
Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 16 April 2013 14:13 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 BA64621F969B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 2vGJ1LakBiL5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3181921F9694 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1US6cf-0007ud-Cm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:12:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:12:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1US6cf-0007ud-Cm@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1US6cd-0007ru-7P for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:12:35 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.61]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1US6cb-00052s-Uk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:12:35 +0000
Received: from [192.168.137.21] (cpe-76-180-197-142.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.197.142]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3GEC6B4001853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:12:07 -0400
Message-ID: <516D5C36.4040003@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:12:06 -0400
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.3.18.170322
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_700_799 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RATWARE_X_MAILER_CS_B 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.61
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.61; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.949, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.702
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1US6cb-00052s-Uk 5323c142e66a6970103ce321c2b67731
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/516D5C36.4040003@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17254
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>
Hi All, In re-reading the latest section 4.1, I'm wondering why ETag was singled out as being a MUST generate, while Last-Modified isn't. If the server is capable of generating both, shouldn't it return both, as it SHOULD for 200 responses (per section 2.4)? What if the client only supports Last-Modified and not ETag (e.g. used If-Modified-Since in its request)? That being said, if the representation hasn't been modified then presumably none of the validators changed. What's the point in returning any of them? Shouldn't it be all or nothing? Just trying to wrap my head around the logic behind singling out ETag over Last-Modified for 304. -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University
- WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified Ken Murchison
- Re: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified Ken Murchison
- Re: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified Roy T. Fielding