Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 30 April 2013 14:55 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 33E3E21F9B4C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:55:36 -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 uUt42RO9z7qD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7D121F9B7C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXBxV-0002W2-IJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:55:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:55:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXBxV-0002W2-IJ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UXBxL-0000wB-2r for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:54:59 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UXBxJ-0002lT-RJ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:54:59 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MOEEk-1URgAt2UVg-005YZ4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:54:31 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2013 14:54:31 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2013 16:54:31 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19lQQ92cr5lrY0MMXUVVRywkX7EpQrwyMdvegNnWX S0BzbXhO8m4kEu
Message-ID: <517FDB23.1050009@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:54:27 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <517FC225.4020609@gmx.de> <517FD961.5020108@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <517FD961.5020108@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.330, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UXBxJ-0002lT-RJ 3baec44e75cf32437e2c748773e2e7b8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517FDB23.1050009@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17729
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 2013-04-30 16:46, Ken Murchison wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:07:49 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> > * 3.1 "...instead they MUST respond with the 412 (Precondition
>> Failed) status code."  This is too strong; e.g., what if
>> authentication is needed? Suggest an "unless..." clause allowing other
>> error status codes.
>
> The first paragraph of Section 5 seems to address the case of 401 and
> any other errors:
>
> "For each conditional request, a server must evaluate the request
> preconditions after it has successfully performed its normal request
> checks (i.e., just before it would perform the action associated with
> the request method). Preconditions are ignored if the server determines
> that an error or redirect response applies before they are evaluated.
> Otherwise, the evaluation depends on both the method semantics and the
> choice of conditional."
>
> The second sentence in Section 3 references Section 5 as far as when
> preconditions are applied.  This seems sufficient to me, but perhaps
> that is because I have read the document several times and know what it
> says in its entirety.

Good catch! I agree that we can leave the sentence alone, then.

Best regards, Julian