WGLC: p4 editorial nits

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 26 March 2013 22:00 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 5196421F8681 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:00:54 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 I4M5gNuuui30 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B323E21F8678 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UKbu6-00012W-8t for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:59:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:59:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UKbu6-00012W-8t@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 1UKbtt-00011N-Rz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:59:25 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.95]) 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 1UKbtt-0008BI-1W for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:59:25 +0000
Received: from Kens-MacBook-Air.local (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 r2QLww0H006557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:58 -0400
Message-ID: <51521A21.6070301@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:58:57 -0400
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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: 2011.5.19.222118
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_400_499 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, NO_URI_FOUND 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, __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 128.2.11.95
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.95; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.302
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UKbtt-0008BI-1W a49cc74821fd88ae6ab3ae987549b490
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WGLC: p4 editorial nits
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51521A21.6070301@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17157
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,

Sec 3.3 (If-Modified-Since) specifically mentions: "A date that is later 
than the server's current time is invalid".

I assume that the same is true for If-Unmodified-Since and I'm wondering 
if similar text should be included in Sec 3.4 and/or normalize the 
invalid date text in both sections.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University