Re: A question about RFC7232#2.2.2

Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de> Sun, 04 December 2016 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 508EE129464 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 17:00:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98rJyL2Vd6mx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 17:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28679129457 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 17:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cDL7I-0001Vm-SB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2016 00:57:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2016 00:57:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cDL7I-0001Vm-SB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>) id 1cDL7A-0001UE-TV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2016 00:57:12 +0000
Received: from mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de ([134.130.5.186]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>) id 1cDL72-0004vx-Ht for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2016 00:57:07 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,295,1477954800"; d="scan'208";a="562733275"
Received: from rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de ([134.130.26.152]) by mx-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2016 01:56:36 +0100
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (209.85.220.174) by rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a98::8682:1a98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3; Sun, 4 Dec 2016 01:56:36 +0100
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x190so314935629qkb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02BHJRNL+ObjsXLDD9MMqdgCdRH4cxFkvYAksQRG8paZJBD5HIHkyO0FydxeYgrKPOeRiFFXAVUy+MXLA==
X-Received: by 10.55.177.5 with SMTP id a5mr48482647qkf.229.1480812995349; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 16:56:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.145.233 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 16:56:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <58435873.2000408@zerustech.com>
References: <58435873.2000408@zerustech.com>
From: Benedikt Christoph Wolters <benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2016 01:56:05 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGZNdJV55R4OcnqfNCrX-=uok3qJw4w8pzrFbWgD1ss-KPi9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGZNdJV55R4OcnqfNCrX-=uok3qJw4w8pzrFbWgD1ss-KPi9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Lee <michael.lee@zerustech.com>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Originating-IP: [209.85.220.174]
X-ClientProxiedBy: rwthex-s1-b.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a99::8682:1a99) To rwthex-s1-a.rwth-ad.de (2002:8682:1a98::8682:1a98)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=134.130.5.186; envelope-from=benedikt.wolters@rwth-aachen.de; helo=mx-out-1.rwth-aachen.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cDL72-0004vx-Ht 17ff2555f3c1535c1b5edb357ec9a85f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A question about RFC7232#2.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAGZNdJV55R4OcnqfNCrX-=uok3qJw4w8pzrFbWgD1ss-KPi9Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33103
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>

2016-12-04 0:42 GMT+01:00 Michael Lee <michael.lee@zerustech.com>om>:
> I don't understand why under the circumstance above, at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time.
Strictly speaking I assume the sentence might be slightly wrong.
What might have been meant here is a scenario where two responses were
send in the same second with identical Last-Modified values and at at
least one Date value that is identical to the Last-Modified values.

> And what's the point of ensuring a 60 seconds gap between the Last-Modified
> time and Date?

If the Date and Last-Modified headers are within 60 seconds, it is
considered a weak validator, due to potential timing inconsistencies
between the Last-Modified clock and Date clock.