A question about RFC7232#2.2.2

Michael Lee <michael.lee@zerustech.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 19:14 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 845BE12964F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:14:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=zerustech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 wNz6JMqLqbS5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28E92128B38 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 11:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cCtFt-0002W6-SD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:12:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:12:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cCtFt-0002W6-SD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michael.lee@zerustech.com>) id 1cCtFl-0002Ty-M7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:12:13 +0000
Received: from mail-pg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <michael.lee@zerustech.com>) id 1cCtFe-0006uk-N8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 19:12:08 +0000
Received: by mail-pg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id p66so110380814pga.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:11:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zerustech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6QqASv5oJoJb7giqu2GUy/la4alIBa9e8wfxd6FGqnI=; b=K08DcUr4NNw6H1LTg5NjanaboIayp9DlKPgIHp90xky7oRv+Oz809cQRGPFFCuGvaz pTh4/JLbRd0Qwy4WfYTBIvBalSllzExs7cCExeot3sjrmnKdkdOmigD2y2uEAcLrvOPL cx9TcpUIya6MH7VcTBFjJEBbZxQXrxgAKDrRfPMXRw9OfNconDJFvoq9vTx4Ha7f6r4i ZmokIj9qSXBFg3DEo2sIScAb9BAlxwwKQgGJHkYmlWgKPC3300t8CuGkdTNyRDVGGc/Z kHUE+sn0rSOYhn7iwra5u0QgPKmVQpWduQgWUh6/CZTLicdc8BSa8FR2U8J8+oQzrQxs LsNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6QqASv5oJoJb7giqu2GUy/la4alIBa9e8wfxd6FGqnI=; b=iCBrodyexc/f/0WkgYelStVFP3zVnpiKdRtI7MSn0RSnv7a95/PhCcNvvqxh3NFlip PupzugrMI65BS2b4TEXSZBigHEaP1BWCNNMkRR4SSCynqmBlugQnLDruoM4mPbofnAUI JZUT0duED2MsLbgKrE5DQHvuU8inP8PHGQSRaxz6zPIzLl6vXD/AVYc4syN8/CiQvLpe 4z1zlDDp1vxh8Qn2Zav399kCPkhAfFwn/E7EDo0ypJ73ezNVeGk+uk+Xq08EK+hZDd1g HEaFZdGClUZlLRTCxMY4cTf/gQ3aAJj9nZQLKHcO1dV3ZbW3e6Xn2gUXz1V9n0OGxCOS J0zA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02uKHraW+wphCPm6QvmKIqL8jrySOoSMCd8L8Rl+JioOeOZZxOMkIW+BOCeEN26iA==
X-Received: by 10.84.216.25 with SMTP id m25mr99600309pli.117.1480705899375; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:11:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 10.0.1.20 (ec2-52-78-85-40.ap-northeast-2.compute.amazonaws.com. [52.78.85.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z28sm9495116pgc.40.2016.12.02.11.11.38 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:11:38 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <5841BF68.1050005@zerustech.com>
From: Michael Lee <michael.lee@zerustech.com>
Message-ID: <5841C76A.9020103@zerustech.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 03:11:38 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5841BF68.1050005@zerustech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none client-ip=74.125.83.51; envelope-from=michael.lee@zerustech.com; helo=mail-pg0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.118, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cCtFe-0006uk-N8 9aeec7f2d8e293e0b9712d220b21199b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: A question about RFC7232#2.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5841C76A.9020103@zerustech.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33096
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>

I am currently working on a tutorial of HTTP/1.1 caching, but I got 
stuck with the following statement in RFC7232 section 2.2.2:

" This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were 
sent by the origin server during the same second, but both had the same 
Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a 
Date <http://httpwg.org/specs/rfc7231.html#header.date> value equal to 
its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the 
possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from 
different clocks or at somewhat different times during the preparation 
of the response. An implementation /MAY/ use a value larger than 60 
seconds, if it is believed that 60 seconds is too short."

I don't understand why under the circumstance above, at least one of 
those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time.

And what's the point of ensuring a 60 seconds gap between the 
Last-Modified time and Date?

-- 
Michael Lee / Managing Director / ZerusTech Ltd

Tel: +86 (21) 6107 3305

Mobile: +86 186 021 03818

Skype: zerustech

Email: michael.lee@zerustech.com

www.zerustech.com

Suite 9208
Building No. 9, 4361 HuTai Road
Shanghai
P.R.China
201906