Re: #96 Conditional GET text

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Fri, 25 January 2013 14:27 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 9DF9D21F8235 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:27:46 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXTSD1H5fSWC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425C721F81FE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TykEk-0006K0-UT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:26:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:26:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TykEk-0006K0-UT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1TykEZ-0006Ie-US for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:26:23 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.207] helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1TykES-0000eM-4C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:26:23 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24CE2F406D; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:25:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=0xShp2RpqgAgf0mk2cQ/lG0WQxU=; b=gsSaQdD4GmAjwSo0dAB8Rz+kwPHU b4LyOe/t1nLVPlaDCv72yqJn4DypQBOo2araJ2P7NO5oJZJQv1p2DV66pXC3mYDw 64Wxqg7SYQd4p9GgrTY57dm/3jRoa7450uvYjlJlWVK9+/Zc1gkoKamEu8a/GSV8 7dAC/B4g2ZrlB94=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90EF02F4060; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <51027F3E.6010904@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:25:52 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <25AA4ADC-0DED-4F04-87D0-647A75CFC14A@gbiv.com>
References: <51027F3E.6010904@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.207; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a63.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.388, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TykES-0000eM-4C 54ea887ae8bbb194558bbebb27b0b0a8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #96 Conditional GET text
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/25AA4ADC-0DED-4F04-87D0-647A75CFC14A@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16218
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 Jan 25, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> in the meantime Roy has addressed the main part of the issue, clarifying that conditional request header fields apply to many methods other than GET.
> 
> I still think it would be good to say more about the default case, though.
> 
> Right now, the spec says:
> 
> "The new method ought to describe whether it can be made conditional (Section 5.2) and, if so, how a server responds when the condition is false." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest.html#considerations.for.new.methods>
> 
> This invites more special cases. Can't we simply state that *all* new methods can be made conditional, and describe the default behavior for the conditions?

I tried to do that, as much as possible, in section 5 of p4
(Evaluation and Precedence)

http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html#precedence

If that is sufficient, I am fine with removing the bit above in
considerations for new methods.

....Roy