IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Weak validators in conditional requests

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 04 September 2018 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 0630A12785F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=f1d9T411; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=VeMhbrgI
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 HsM1SmiTRzUx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36155127333 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1fx0fT-0004P7-Dp for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 02:02:11 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 02:02:11 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1fx0fT-0004P7-Dp@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1fx0fO-0004OP-G0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 02:02:06 +0000
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1fx0fM-0003zU-Q1 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 02:02:06 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF83221B90; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:01:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 03 Sep 2018 22:01:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=//1cfIAofIAj/t9ZOpB+hztflARHZ xFhiaTEUlYMJS8=; b=f1d9T411jKfL0pKfS5Q77o17jg//ONi+1PfMmcuOouIlK MgWuede75NBXzfiabPLOuF2EOOmcSC6IIXOtE1YPAT+S86FCmvcftSKdnfY9recs Dt/9dc3oDiaabT1xfXFMa0SWGnBO1acziRwncbtT5M+lzb+bhNk5rVEfdkppLwj9 B43GBL+Bg468vjNos3t5VqCmKfa6A0DWeOZfhmQPzezCzOFRJ7tJID9PoWs6CFYn o2n/dvdW/Sj3JGMgo1CWjwcf9ySki1XHFqR0IrXTsMbTq0ISMhNierKL2Yji6Nu4 PkiINAzwsjETQ+WbCeR8cN0AHtvOeHNcabbfXhveA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=//1cfI AofIAj/t9ZOpB+hztflARHZxFhiaTEUlYMJS8=; b=VeMhbrgI8YFY9i9af6pTsv ENbYy8X50lxhIUWswc0TppbYvHJABqOaZlf85JLkU8Nu5dKh6ImllngSja8nXFu+ RnDRmTL4gQYTU1GKNxnJk9KIojWuKXYx1rVYzqurP7oTsMG7rkvc0b5E3rslD+zt dhVjdbWSRBQp/cbHIcmkur4FqPd0nu6WotbF6lQkYaOtdAJ+fNrXgV5yhkMyjmlY jpy7lYxJPuq9xw15cFW98zuCwNFuI83DsCMG2Chht9akw9A4kURNmFvlLCijwqzl bDB8Xlv8ZjZEpB35VPW8uSXjEXr8iVJgVRRekg/q5dL0wduOCBp0SD9Zhr+ZQE6A ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:hueNWxioyXYhjApfrD8vE6AdTcfq5BDiaaYhOBtvEpktA4LXT1wxQw> <xmx:hueNWwL00unbkKVOeSr2CBcbz1h0s4OPhYG2-ZSPwCgSqqcO_t4y-Q> <xmx:h-eNW2E6NtZA184q11uhnLwIQOQgJVWUFv33UBmHrBo4RPh-7OtI2w> <xmx:h-eNW6YMO-SkTzwKPUJUloWN9-5qRPag8VHh-WkvZ1xg3dJAFAM39A> <xmx:h-eNW-OqpcqS7RNHYt62kv3oGOJRbyIAh4D3PK18EtekIrWW63BPOg> <xmx:h-eNW3-1yf_9jS7B5vB1wJ2zPM5jGn264Vv6852AA53KPJypte93Lw>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:hueNWz8RKRWHBhLVPQo8Db5uHE-JhbZZx2h8plczZE-TP2bqnd0YMg>
Received: from [10.48.232.179] (unknown [203.56.3.38]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E4F6D10293; Mon, 3 Sep 2018 22:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <bf5a9b56-c416-d4ab-2fbe-ac9b0482dcaa@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 12:01:37 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0ACB722F-BC39-49BE-9401-F01193E45DAD@mnot.net>
References: <bf5a9b56-c416-d4ab-2fbe-ac9b0482dcaa@measurement-factory.com>
To: Eduard Bagdasaryan <eduard.bagdasaryan@measurement-factory.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1fx0fM-0003zU-Q1 76a43c1d4cdf11e6dceb42de340843b1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Weak validators in conditional requests
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/0ACB722F-BC39-49BE-9401-F01193E45DAD@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35884
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Eduard,

> On 28 Aug 2018, at 7:54 pm, Eduard Bagdasaryan <eduard.bagdasaryan@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> Could you please help with the following two questions:
> 
> 1. The old RFC 2616 has a MUST requirement:
> 
>> A cache or origin server receiving a conditional request, other than
>> a full-body GET request, MUST use the strong comparison function to
>> evaluate the condition.
> 
> But I have not found this (or equivalent) in HTTPbis. Is it deprecated?

It's stated in the definition of each conditional header; see:
  https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7232.html#preconditions

Cheers,


> 
> 2. RFC 7233 Appendix B states:
> 
>> A weak validator cannot be used in a 206 response. (Section 4.1)
> 
> However, I do not see any explicit 'weak validator' restrictions in
> 4.1 Section. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email