IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Preference-Applied Response Header

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Thu, 07 March 2013 16:31 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 DEA6521F8A4E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:31:12 -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 iZhmFmrq8u2S for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579B821F89DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDdhj-0006Rj-Ik for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:30:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:30:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDdhj-0006Rj-Ik@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UDdhW-00059K-6n for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:29:50 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.96]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UDdhS-0006r4-44 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:29:47 +0000
Received: from [192.168.137.21] (cpe-76-180-197-142.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.197.142]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27GTG8c017492 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 11:29:17 -0500
Message-ID: <5138C05C.6050103@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:29:16 -0500
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu> <5138B658.6050606@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5138B658.6050606@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2010.4.9.4220
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODY_SIZE_1100_1199 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.96
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.96; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.037, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UDdhS-0006r4-44 c1563552ff24c7ea0c6ea1ba4d9deeb8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Preference-Applied Response Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5138C05C.6050103@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16986
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>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 15:32, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Its not overly important, but as I was coding this up, I started
>> wondering how to categorize this response header in httpbis-22 terms.
>> Would this header be considered part of Control Data, Response Context,
>> Representation Metadata, or something else?  Right now, I'm leaning
>> towards Control Data since Prefer is similar to Expect which is
>> categorized as a Control.
>>
>> And while we're at it, what about these WebDAV response headers:
>>
>> DAV: similar to Allow => Response Context?
> 
> Si.
> 
>> Lock-Token: used in conditional requests => Validator?
> 
> Nope, lock tokens (for the purpose of validation) are passed using "If"...

Unless I'm missing something, doesn't the presence of "if" make a method 
conditional?  The execution of state-changing method on a locked 
resource is conditional upon validation of the correct lock-token in the 
"If" header (or "Lock-Token" in the case of UNLOCK).


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email