Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 06 May 2013 06:35 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 44F6F21F8B3A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2013 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, 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 uULFco2UlVtE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 May 2013 23:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382F821F87AB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 May 2013 23:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UZF0b-0004PK-62 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 06:34:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 06:34:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UZF0b-0004PK-62@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZF0R-0004Na-AQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 06:34:39 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UZF0Q-000214-NT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 06:34:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50D1C22E256; Mon, 6 May 2013 02:34:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <51874DEB.2070802@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 16:34:12 +1000
Cc: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BEACC84-4BA0-4E23-9E08-5EE6B74F03CF@mnot.net>
References: <517FC225.4020609@gmx.de> <517FD961.5020108@andrew.cmu.edu> <1A0A9A80-3552-43F0-8A30-4235660ABBC3@mnot.net> <5182102B.2080200@gmx.de> <5FED5920-BC5D-409B-98E1-CF15CFF7EFE4@mnot.net> <51874DEB.2070802@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.436, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UZF0Q-000214-NT 47ee9aee9f71ec170ff8f231a82fa6d2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1BEACC84-4BA0-4E23-9E08-5EE6B74F03CF@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17844
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>

On 06/05/2013, at 4:30 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> a) For some of these, MUST may be better.

I thought you were interested in keeping changes minimal... :)

> b) It always has been MUST, why change it?

Because strictly interpreted, it can result in leaking information about resources that require authentication (among other nonsensical conditions).

> And most importantly:
> 
> c) A conditional header field may be used to protect a potentially destructive request to change a resource that has been updated in between. Clients must be able to rely on that this protection works (and they do rely on it now), so it is a MUST fail. The also rely on a specific status code being returned in this case for diagnostics, so I believe it has to remain a "MUST fail" with this specific code.

Great; we can make it MUST NOT apply the method, as we do elsewhere in several places already, whilst making the status code to return a SHOULD.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/