Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Mon, 18 March 2013 07:01 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 6DAEB21F8853 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 yH4SyANXvZ4X for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C557621F8845 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UHU2L-0000sB-LD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:59:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:59:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UHU2L-0000sB-LD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1UHU24-0000oW-Qc for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:58:56 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1UHU24-0002kA-BM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:58:56 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15ECD8A521; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:58:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r2I6wWCS010365; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:58:34 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
cc: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <em2a931273-ea65-4c5c-83d3-2d9698e19de0@bombed>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <em2a931273-ea65-4c5c-83d3-2d9698e19de0@bombed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:58:32 +0000
Message-ID: <10364.1363589912@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.195, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.497
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UHU24-0002kA-BM 54106add9078be0ae225e6538e145628
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WGLC p6 4.2.1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/10364.1363589912@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17048
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>

In message <em2a931273-ea65-4c5c-83d3-2d9698e19de0@bombed>, "Adrien W. de Croy" writes:

>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.

There are several uses I know of, where IMS is used by clients
without having an older object, as a way to say "Is a recent version
of this object available ?".

One such usage is "Are there any severe weather warnings published
in the last 24 hours ?" which avoids pulling the "no warnings"
boilerplate most of the year.

I will fully agree, that using only values originally received from
the server is a lot more water-tight, and is to be strongly recommended
(at the SHOULD level), but trying to outlaw other values is a waste
of everybodys time, given that such a ban cannot be sensibly enforced
by us.

If the server for some reason insists on not receiving arbitrary
timestamps in IMS, it can use E-tags, which by definition are
impossible to synthesize anywhere else.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.