#461, was: p4: editorial suggestions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 30 April 2013 13:09 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7FD621F9BA3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GNk46ho9jMyA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF06221F9B4C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXAII-0003Ix-Ht for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:08:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:08:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXAII-0003Ix-Ht@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UXAI9-0003GP-FS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:08:21 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UXAI6-0006Aa-Iw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:08:21 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Laq3S-1UvGka1H1k-00kQzP for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:07:52 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2013 13:07:52 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO []) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2013 15:07:52 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX191euU3J8515uUs/TlefUS4nWtGlXcsh8LJG1aAt+ MOBytVoOj3ovNB
Message-ID: <517FC225.4020609@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:07:49 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <B3619608-3233-41BD-8BCC-6D657D05DC8E@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B3619608-3233-41BD-8BCC-6D657D05DC8E@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.388, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UXAI6-0006Aa-Iw f9eec74b97a61ed2760eef63b718886a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517FC225.4020609@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17725
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>

On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> * 2.1 "...avoid confusing cache behaviour." It's not just caches; suggest "...avoid undesired behaviour."


> * 3.1 "...instead they MUST respond with the 412 (Precondition Failed) status code."  This is too strong; e.g., what if authentication is needed? Suggest an "unless..." clause allowing other error status codes.

This is indeed a change from 2616 where we had:

"If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in 
anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match header MUST 
be ignored." -- 

The change happened between -21 and -22; maybe we should just go back to 
the original text?

> * 3.2 needs a references to "unsafe" in p2.


> * 3.4 same problem with MUST respond as 3.1.
> * 5 Paragraphs two and three repeat what's been said previously in the document; are they necessary?

 From a quick glance section 5 provides a general overview of how things 
are designed to work; as such the text seems to be useful there. Do you 
see any problems besides the risk of inconsistencies with other text?

Best regards, Julian