Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers: Digests and Conditional Requests

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 06:27 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 52DBD3A0FC5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gbiv.com
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 516b1l8IplrU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 8525B3A0FC4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jtPzd-0001rO-E1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:25:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:25:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jtPzd-0001rO-E1@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1jtPzc-0001qY-8E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:25:12 +0000
Received: from aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.212.6]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1jtPzV-0003ou-PW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:25:12 +0000
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DE91217CD; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:24:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-5-123.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.5.123]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 974AC1214AF; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 06:24:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 06:24:52 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Whispering-Broad: 112b2719381ebab1_1594275892110_420197446
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1594275892109:4247339182
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1594275892109
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A5F7FF4B; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=gbiv.com; bh=jRvdL+GTOINO6r+jnIXNy7V0mu4=; b= NVAQvbTm306zTsfcKEcqpFzvG8MSlhUM8Qv+uZ/3mm4udLAAAh3zgbJcEK8XYC1+ GdWCXP2mG3owaOBPx56+5TY06KbNRiF+g1SdtyaKh6zMGkzaAEN53PE+aY4P1k3H BGbfMPffR+kSFd9CCzolF0PvA3utajY3IETXyZmJNXk=
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ip68-101-102-139.oc.oc.cox.net [68.101.102.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a3.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BBBB7F7F9; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a3
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Message-Id: <1D3BF08C-2158-457E-A93D-A9ACD0C1C8BA@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DE87DA5C-C94B-4B81-9A38-09DFE0F0B211"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 23:24:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1dc10a09-da57-4142-ab9c-055cf67a531e@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <34df5225-0f28-2e17-0439-f51e653580b0@gmx.de> <229F55EE-B76A-4C9B-8EC4-2BEE714CBE96@mnot.net> <24b7c84f-3bb4-0a63-3b01-9cd250648a1d@gmx.de> <5752391D-0306-41FC-9FFC-6120C905ADDC@mnot.net> <1dc10a09-da57-4142-ab9c-055cf67a531e@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudekgddutdelucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffktgggufffjgfvfhfosegrtdhmrehhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpedftfhohicuvfdrucfhihgvlhguihhnghdfuceofhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepjedujeeitedtudefgfevgeeiueeutddvffeuveduleelueevhefhieehtdehjeefnecuffhomhgrihhnpeiffedrohhrghenucfkphepieekrddutddurddutddvrddufeelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrddurdduudgnpdhinhgvthepieekrddutddurddutddvrddufeelpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedftfhohicuvfdrucfhihgvlhguihhnghdfuceofhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepfhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepihgvthhfqdhhthhtphdqfihgseiffedrohhrgh
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=23.83.212.6; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jtPzV-0003ou-PW 7b84a71a659c3f450869815cf0f53675
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-digest-headers: Digests and Conditional Requests
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/1D3BF08C-2158-457E-A93D-A9ACD0C1C8BA@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37862
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>

> On Jul 8, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 09.07.2020 07:27, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8 Jul 2020, at 6:28 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...already covered by "If". I would prefer using something that is
>>> already defined, instead of having to mint two more header fields (we'd
>>> need both "If-Hash" and "If-Not-Hash", right?).
>> 
>> The problem is that it's not obvious what parts of If will need to be implemented to interoperate for a particular use case; will they need to support entity-tags too? What about Resource-Tags? The ability to put lists of conditions with varying aspects? Different URI schemes? It's actually a quite complex mechanism.
> 
> The answer to all of these is "yes", except for URI schemes. It's up to
> the server to decide which URI schemes to support for state tokens. "ni"
> is special here because there would need to be an out-of-band signal
> that the server does these. (For WebDAV, that could be in OPTIONS).
> 
> It is more complex, but then having multiple conditional header fields
> is complex, too.
> 
>> To me, it's much more straightforward to define a new header (or headers) to meet the use case in hand, with some modest affordance for extensibility. It would also remove the need to mint yet another customer parser if Structured Fields were used.
> 
> Defining a generic conditional header field using SH syntax would
> certainly be interesting, yes.

Oh, really ...

  https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-01#Logic-Bags <https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-01#Logic-Bags>

....Roy