Re: Confusion in preconditions

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Thu, 02 February 2012 06:06 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 AA7E321F89CB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.992, 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 KAaMlTdybQGy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C13221F89CA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 22:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Rspmw-0006Hz-0G for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:04:54 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Rspmd-0006H5-2m for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:04:35 +0000
Received: from [2002:3a1c:99e9:0:206:5bff:fe7c:b8a] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1RspmY-0002ft-VR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:04:33 +0000
Received: from [10.1.1.14] (unknown [119.224.40.49]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6B7E6D60; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:03:55 +1300 (NZDT)
Message-ID: <4F2A2747.1020208@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:03:51 +1300
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <3DDD0BE655869D4EA506652B3803AEF6C3519BA5@PRISM.caffeine-it.net> <CACuKZqE+Vw80aZNzFSOp9bSFoAQa+OYa4Bg91uNrsyBu0CjwDA@mail.gmail.com> <3b442e89fa90dc06621b6a1a7fcb6916@treenet.co.nz> <CACuKZqExJTgxZeFFrvES5w-FNBFcTkcW+zxrzRO8mX9A+aWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqExJTgxZeFFrvES5w-FNBFcTkcW+zxrzRO8mX9A+aWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2002:3a1c:99e9:0:206:5bff:fe7c:b8a; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1RspmY-0002ft-VR 6e725e377c79c02a3adf07607dd9da65
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Confusion in preconditions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F2A2747.1020208@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12303
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: <E1Rspmw-0006Hz-0G@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:04:54 +0000

On 2/02/2012 4:38 a.m., Zhong Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Amos Jeffries<squid3@treenet.co.nz>  wrote:
>> On 01.02.2012 19:11, Zhong Yu wrote:
>> I am pushing to have the conditionals interpreted as a AND condition between
>> all present conditionals.
>>
>>   if anything needs a special status response ->  do that
>>   if any of the conditions is invalid =>  412 status
>>   if ( (If-Match x) AND (If-None-Match y or z) AND (if-modified-since T) AND
>> ... ) =>  2xx status
>>   otherwise 304 status
> I don't quite understand. According to the current draft -
>
> 1) If there's a single If-Match condition and it tests false, we
> should return 412.

That would be "special status....".

> 2) If there's a single If-None-Match condition and it tests false (and
> the method is GET/HEAD), we should return 304.

"otherwise ..."

>
> Your pseudo code doesn't seem to behave this way.
>
> Zhong yu