Re: Confusion in preconditions

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Wed, 01 February 2012 15:40 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 2717211E80F7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:40:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 4GnZbeEV+6wI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E3911E8071 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:40:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RscHG-0000yb-3B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:18 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1RscGz-0000wZ-6y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:01 +0000
Received: from mail-vx0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1RscGw-0002Io-QC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:00 +0000
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so1282717vcb.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:38:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o8lU6mvH/UoKwp4ZggZoEVWFnryDb06IhqrKJDUVJrY=; b=sGPzpX65d+ctqHmA9COJwshdKdpmzHqub7NtUtJoSaLLZ3vxtUD2D9l9XpavQ1cEKf iPJ39n3kEgqMrVLzcYV2Ppq/+9ibsvT1DZQh93gelJ58gaiS6YiB6bX9IisWE5bGtsse SDLCIVwPZkDHtDBBmymE06Z7qG74cseRE4T/4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.115.9 with SMTP id g9mr14914927vcq.56.1328110713194; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 07:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.192.137 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:38:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3b442e89fa90dc06621b6a1a7fcb6916@treenet.co.nz>
References: <3DDD0BE655869D4EA506652B3803AEF6C3519BA5@PRISM.caffeine-it.net> <CACuKZqE+Vw80aZNzFSOp9bSFoAQa+OYa4Bg91uNrsyBu0CjwDA@mail.gmail.com> <3b442e89fa90dc06621b6a1a7fcb6916@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:38:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqExJTgxZeFFrvES5w-FNBFcTkcW+zxrzRO8mX9A+aWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.171; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com; helo=mail-vx0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1RscGw-0002Io-QC 2a3b626c64164d9cbd4f4991755ca963
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Confusion in preconditions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqExJTgxZeFFrvES5w-FNBFcTkcW+zxrzRO8mX9A+aWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12299
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: <E1RscHG-0000yb-3B@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:18 +0000

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> On 01.02.2012 19:11, Zhong Yu wrote:

> I am pushing to have the conditionals interpreted as a AND condition between
> all present conditionals.
>
>  if anything needs a special status response -> do that
>  if any of the conditions is invalid => 412 status
>  if ( (If-Match x) AND (If-None-Match y or z) AND (if-modified-since T) AND
> ... ) => 2xx status
>  otherwise 304 status

I don't quite understand. According to the current draft -

1) If there's a single If-Match condition and it tests false, we
should return 412.
2) If there's a single If-None-Match condition and it tests false (and
the method is GET/HEAD), we should return 304.

Your pseudo code doesn't seem to behave this way.

Zhong yu