Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19.txt

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 16 April 2012 15:09 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 17CE921F8694 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.227, 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 AiALIuEt8PvO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB9421F8690 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SJnWd-0005Pe-36 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:07:31 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>) id 1SJnWS-0005Ok-C6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:07:20 +0000
Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>) id 1SJnWI-0007ny-83 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:07:18 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1334588808; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=+/j4TL2FtbxGnxRXl0b3ycU11JuZRaJwoVtd1uHQy/A=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=JSrIDrT+3KKGOCBPFkh6av6ViEWZSnfXW17SsNZC/snFfjg/V2QzDUdvbP0mcsMFi+4OTR IC9GxHPdIzzRQXzB5FsK7Z/d+3/oJsnK8wmAyIZk6x6rZD4aaMXPeWl9dCDnvvuOlN5EyR rtaDZvl7C9X/SCNhGUPSIIYkhqqXcZo=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T4w1hwAg26Mp@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:06:48 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4F8C35B8.4020802@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:07:37 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.3.217.251; envelope-from=alexey.melnikov@isode.com; helo=rufus.isode.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1SJnWI-0007ny-83 485aeb9b75f688b319d97cb281cc78d4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F8C35B8.4020802@isode.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13451
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SJnWd-0005Pe-36@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:07:31 +0000

Hi,
Sorry for being a bit late with this review.

> 3.2. If-None-Match
>
> If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result
> in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status code, then the If-None-
Should this list also include 412 listed above in the same section?
> Match header field MUST be ignored. (See Section 2.4 for a
> discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-
> None-Match appear in the same request.)

> 3.3. If-Modified-Since
>
> The "If-Modified-Since" header field MAY be used to make a request
> method conditional by modification date: if the selected
> representation has not been modified since the time specified in this
> field, then do not perform the request method; instead, respond as
> detailed below.

This section doesn't seem to say anything about methods other than GET,
yet the text seems to imply that a more general case is also covered 
"below",
yet this section only talks about GET.

> 3.4. If-Unmodified-Since
>
> If the specified date is invalid, the header field MUST be ignored.

Here and elsewhere in the document: do you mean syntactic validity,
semantic validity (e.g. date in the future are invalid) or both?

> 4.1. 304 Not Modified
>
> If the recipient of a 304 response does not have a cached
> representation corresponding to the entity-tag indicated by the 304
> response, then the recipient MUST NOT use the 304 to update its own
> cache. If this conditional request originated with an outbound
> client, such as a user agent with its own cache sending a conditional
> GET to a shared proxy, then the 304 response MAY be forwarded to the
> outbound client.
This looks strange: an outbound client ... MAY forward the 304 response to
the outbound client?