Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Wed, 01 February 2012 01:41 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 0CEBD11E80B5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:41:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.446, 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 g4PKHMWSOGem for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E65011E809D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsPBE-0004Wc-MW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:40:12 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1RsPB2-0004V2-JC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:40:00 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1RsPB0-0001B3-C0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:40:00 +0000
Received: by treenet.co.nz (Postfix, from userid 33) id 0E58CE6FAC; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:39:29 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:main.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:39:29 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <FF3263CC845E37A2C52BA166@vp0101wa-dhcp96.apple.com>
References: <CABP7RbeCuXbrp+w0wX1F-YyOFjKn7NDif2Ye+EaymVi3Nv7-qQ@mail.gmail.com> <FF3263CC845E37A2C52BA166@vp0101wa-dhcp96.apple.com>
Message-ID: <4a61319e45bc884f838b6251aa77ef54@treenet.co.nz>
X-Sender: squid3@treenet.co.nz
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.1
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1RsPB0-0001B3-C0 f4e27e2d55d325c36b183465648343e8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Informal Last Call for HTTP Preference Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4a61319e45bc884f838b6251aa77ef54@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12289
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: <E1RsPBE-0004Wc-MW@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:40:12 +0000

On 01.02.2012 12:58, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> --On January 31, 2012 1:28:17 PM -0800 James Snell 
> <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just posted an update for the HTTP Prefer Header altering the
>> intended status from "Informational" to "Standards Track". No
>> additional changes were made. As I have not received any further
>> technical input on the specification, I am issuing an *Informal* 
>> Last
>> Call for comments before I request that it be kicked up the chain 
>> for
>> review.
>>
>> Mark Nottingham has agreed to serve as the document shepherd for
>> helping to move it forward.
>>
>> Current Draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-snell-http-prefer-11.txt
>
> Can you clarify the meaning of an ETag header returned in the
> response to a PUT with a Prefer:return-representation header. Would
> that ETag refer to the resource whose representation is being
> returned?

If it does not something is badly broken. HTTPbis part 4 section 2.3:
"
2.3. ETag

    The ETag header field provides the current entity-tag for the
    selected representation.
"

> If so, could we please include ETag in the example. If not,
> then we really need a way to get the actual ETag for the returned
> representation - otherwise Prefer:return-representation is not that
> useful.

+1.

AYJ