IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Mon, 29 April 2013 12:19 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 BA76E21F9D89 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:19:12 -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 Swj9sbiRnEsr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B69121F9D88 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 05:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWn2i-0000B1-9t for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:18:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:18:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWn2i-0000B1-9t@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 1UWn2Z-0000AA-Ny for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:18:43 +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 1UWn2V-0004IP-C5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:18:43 +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 r3TCICHm003621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <517E6504.5050709@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:18:12 -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>
References: <516D5C36.4040003@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <516D5C36.4040003@andrew.cmu.edu>
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_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_800_899 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, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 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 128.2.11.95
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=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.442
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UWn2V-0004IP-C5 62771258fa13ae75dcd55b446a3fb53f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC: p4, 304 Not Modified
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517E6504.5050709@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17655
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>

Any thoughts on this?


Ken Murchison wrote:
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email