Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 20 March 2013 01:10 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 DD02821F8DE9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.456
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.143, 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 cMaxtxenotsP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AE321F8D00 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UI7W4-0007t4-84 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UI7W4-0007t4-84@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UI7Vu-0007rk-2c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:22 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UI7Vp-00006v-7z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:22 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.42.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A69A4509B6; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:07:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <498FD585-41EC-4240-8562-7F28EF16F7BA@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:07:49 +1100
Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B14B2EB2-4AB1-43C2-A69E-AC086D7998D0@mnot.net>
References: <em2a931273-ea65-4c5c-83d3-2d9698e19de0@bombed> <498FD585-41EC-4240-8562-7F28EF16F7BA@gbiv.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.361, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UI7Vp-00006v-7z a340ce11343df9c659068f13bff8d4b1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B14B2EB2-4AB1-43C2-A69E-AC086D7998D0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17084
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 20/03/2013, at 5:00 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 17, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> I see there were some changes made to the 3rd bullet point in 4.2.1 about selection of representations to update with a 304. >> >> The new text hints that dates other than those received in a previous Last-Modified can be used to generate a conditional request with If-Modified-Since. > > Yes, because that has always been allowed, including within my > original definition when I invented it in 1993. IMS is used for > both cache updates and restricted-window traversals (e.g., MOMspider). Indeed; I've seen a widely-used browser doing it. Cheers, > >> However, there are a number of side-effects with introducing this concept. > > It is not being introduced. p6 was originally extracted to only talk > about the use of IMS in caching, but it still needs to deal with all > valid uses of IMS that were defined in RFC2616, RFC2068, and RFC1945. > The recent changes in p6 just restores the prior definitions. > > This dual use of IMS has never been a problem in the past, though > concerns about it was one of the main reasons for introducing etags > as a replacement for validation. > > ....Roy -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- WGLC p6 4.2.1 Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Amos Jeffries
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Fabian Keil
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Roy T. Fielding
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Mark Nottingham
- Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1 Adrien W. de Croy