Weak validators in conditional requests
Eduard Bagdasaryan <eduard.bagdasaryan@measurement-factory.com> Fri, 31 August 2018 09:00 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 61BB9130DC3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 02:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 vWcStAh-JYTW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 02:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04562128CF3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 02:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1fvfFV-0003cT-PO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:57:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1fvfFV-0003cT-PO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1fvfFQ-0003bk-St for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:57:44 +0000
Received: from raoul.w3.org ([128.30.52.128]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1fvfFQ-0007X8-2A for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:57:44 +0000
Received: from homard.platy.net ([80.67.176.7] helo=[192.168.1.38]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ylafon@w3.org>) id 1fvfFP-0001Wt-Nz for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:57:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Eduard Bagdasaryan <eduard.bagdasaryan@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:54:46 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:57:41 +0200
Resent-To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <bf5a9b56-c416-d4ab-2fbe-ac9b0482dcaa@measurement-factory.com>
X-Name-Md5: efe3dad792d606410c9cc49cedaffc94
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.163, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1fvfFQ-0007X8-2A ac8391640f4376a31869aeb6fb93d97e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Weak validators in conditional requests
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/bf5a9b56-c416-d4ab-2fbe-ac9b0482dcaa@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35866
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hello, Could you please help with the following two questions: 1. The old RFC 2616 has a MUST requirement: > A cache or origin server receiving a conditional request, other than > a full-body GET request, MUST use the strong comparison function to > evaluate the condition. But I have not found this (or equivalent) in HTTPbis. Is it deprecated? 2. RFC 7233 Appendix B states: > A weak validator cannot be used in a 206 response. (Section 4.1) However, I do not see any explicit 'weak validator' restrictions in 4.1 Section. Am I missing something? Thank you, Ed
- Weak validators in conditional requests Eduard Bagdasaryan
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Mark Nottingham
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Eduard Bagdasaryan
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Julian Reschke
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Eduard Bagdasaryan
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Julian Reschke
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Eduard Bagdasaryan
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Mark Nottingham
- Re: Weak validators in conditional requests Eduard Bagdasaryan