IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Fri, 12 September 2014 14:42 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474731A6F04 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.654
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.654 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 QDxlQ79kp8KW for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193181A6EF3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XSS1X-0006Ha-GT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:40:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:40:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XSS1X-0006Ha-GT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1XSS1D-0006De-17 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:40:11 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1XSS1B-0003Zm-9X for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:40:10 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h18so621160igc.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ve3xaB/xoI9/dZfOSN3llbTcDri+LfHhj8dzwVPEG10=; b=ePeoWydo2bPXtwtpp2rbSux3emQwZbT/JMIVyLXeprbFijWeXmwDTtknv+ZMXSiyLD wQdQdGqpr8mlnkhn8Bm/itpED7enYzAz0plc6mhCizMWEa6BSq6/chHTxcBsrUsmuBuy h4f54CJ+hllKW7nXYZZBT2BoMSQErH+F6cQJMQkVoEJOhq+ZgcWxkhffbrTVhWf6kgH0 DIMecWWRghABH2GRIda7Q5QbPrDggIDr02CXw/Hq2EW5rJrObzj6mU7g+43Nl+SwGMQ8 HyZ3VrpYznCq9xhftmQURorRmiXgZlWFBb382XhEEfO3bFJj5WsiNi9EZQu7j/3ghQS2 NCxw==
X-Received: by 10.50.62.50 with SMTP id v18mr2758366igr.21.1410532783480; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.15.84 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUPfpfkt89idk5tHb-We+npEdORtBQbMMdqcS_9d4fHYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140908114205.2765.8200.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20E5D3F0-503E-4615-A165-DE2814F12DE2@mnot.net> <39300.1410444968@critter.freebsd.dk> <CABkgnnUPfpfkt89idk5tHb-We+npEdORtBQbMMdqcS_9d4fHYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:39:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd2LDdx8o2Nqjg+aumQD5f6PZmf4tZTZPvGTJTPbQrc9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.182; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.720, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XSS1B-0003Zm-9X 9ae1cef7b935fb91bc8ae3d134bac817
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Expiration impending: <draft-nottingham-http-patch-status-00.txt>
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbd2LDdx8o2Nqjg+aumQD5f6PZmf4tZTZPvGTJTPbQrc9w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27095
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>

So long as the integrity check is optional, that would be fine... it
just won't work with some patch formats (e.g. JSON Merge Patch [1] ).

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-merge-patch-07

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 September 2014 07:16, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> At the very least, if we do this, some kind of integrity check (ie:
>> a MD5 checksum or similar) should be included in the scheme, so
>> that the client can check that the patch operation gave the right
>> result.
>
> Yes.  ETag doesn't cut it for this.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email