Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Mon, 18 March 2013 09:00 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 6F8E421F87D3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.389, 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 yVO2K7OE9N5b for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C562621F88CF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UHVux-00011H-Ok for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:59:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:59:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UHVux-00011H-Ok@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UHVuj-0000zQ-Tz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:59:29 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UHVue-0008V8-Ro for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:59:29 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.5.0 (Build 3512)) with SMTP id <0019581901@smtp.qbik.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:59:02 +1300
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:59:02 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <5146CD96.3070707@treenet.co.nz>
Message-Id: <ema8b6f777-7b08-4723-b705-f55ab8fa61af@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17595.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.191, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UHVue-0008V8-Ro b88f37eaac8993a41924f14a7f36dd4e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/ema8b6f777-7b08-4723-b705-f55ab8fa61af@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17050
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>

there are some interactions with caches.

for instance a cache receiving a request with If-Modified-Since later 
than its own Last-Modified, may presume the client has a later copy, and 
discard its own copy.

I think really if we're to introduce this sort of allowed behaviour, we 
need to do a bit more work on the spec, if only to cover the other parts 
where IMS is covered etc.

And set some rules.

Adrien



------ Original Message ------
From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 18/03/2013 9:17:26 p.m.
Subject: Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1
>On 18/03/2013 7:58 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>  In message <em2a931273-ea65-4c5c-83d3-2d9698e19de0@bombed>, "Adrien 
>>W. de Croy" writes:
>>
>>>  I see there were some changes made to the 3rd bullet point in 4.2.1
>>>  about selection of representations to update with a 304.
>>>
>>>  The new text hints that dates other than those received in a 
>>>previous
>>>  Last-Modified can be used to generate a conditional request with
>>>  If-Modified-Since.
>>  There are several uses I know of, where IMS is used by clients
>>  without having an older object, as a way to say "Is a recent version
>>  of this object available ?".
>>
>>  One such usage is "Are there any severe weather warnings published
>>  in the last 24 hours ?" which avoids pulling the "no warnings"
>>  boilerplate most of the year.
>>
>>  I will fully agree, that using only values originally received from
>>  the server is a lot more water-tight, and is to be strongly 
>>recommended
>>  (at the SHOULD level), but trying to outlaw other values is a waste
>>  of everybodys time, given that such a ban cannot be sensibly enforced
>>  by us.
>>
>>  If the server for some reason insists on not receiving arbitrary
>>  timestamps in IMS, it can use E-tags, which by definition are
>>  impossible to synthesize anywhere else.
>
>+1 on what PHK said.
>
>A client with out-of-band information about the server state should not
>be hindered by HTTP as to the conditionals it makes a request with.
>As long as the server response is correct in relation to those
>conditionals it cannot cause problematic side effects elsewhere than 
>the
>client itself, since all intermediaries will be considering that
>request+reply in isolation.
>
>Amos
>