Requiring proxies to process warn-date

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 08 May 2013 13:16 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 4F74C21F8B65 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 06:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, 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 zm-hkQz0+nef for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2013 06:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD30921F9355 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 06:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ua4Co-0006dA-QS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 13:14:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 13:14:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ua4Co-0006dA-QS@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ua4Cd-0006cM-Hj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 13:14:39 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ua4CZ-0004rV-Bl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 08 May 2013 13:14:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C293122E1F4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 8 May 2013 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D528E812-45A0-426F-972F-3F4AC6F8DEA7@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 23:14:09 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.387, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ua4CZ-0004rV-Bl 8e740c2b3ecbb4218c3972d78e148b91
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Requiring proxies to process warn-date
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/D528E812-45A0-426F-972F-3F4AC6F8DEA7@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17892
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>

In #480, Alex brought this text up in p6:

> If an implementation sends a message with one or more Warning header fields to a receiver whose version is HTTP/1.0 or lower, then the sender must include in each warning-value a warn-date that matches the Date header field in the message.
> 
> If a system receives a message with a warning-value that includes a warn-date, and that warn-date is different from the Date value in the response, then that warning-value must be deleted from the message before storing, forwarding, or using it. (preventing the consequences of naive caching of Warning header fields.) If all of the warning-values are deleted for this reason, the Warning header field must be deleted as well.

My inclination here is to change the first paragraph to begin "If a sender generates a message...", and the second to be "If a recipient receives...", also removing "forwarding" later down.

This is because IME proxies do not do any of this for messages that they aren't caching, and moreover there are whole classes of implementations that won't.

Thoughts?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/