Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 30 April 2013 14:48 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 A218921F9814 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:48:51 -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 eG4pr6FU+kWb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC7F21F9ABE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXBpw-0006xS-BT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:47:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:47:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXBpw-0006xS-BT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UXBpl-0006uh-1C for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:47:09 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.11.61]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1UXBpg-0002EI-Fq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:47:08 +0000
Received: from Kens-MacBook-Air.local (cpe-76-180-197-142.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.197.142]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3UEkbBo020470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:46:38 -0400
Message-ID: <517FD961.5020108@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:46:57 -0400
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <517FC225.4020609@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <517FC225.4020609@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.388399, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.3.18.170322
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1200_1299 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __RDNS_POOLED_2 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NO_NAME 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 128.2.11.61
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.11.61; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.046, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.509
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UXBpg-0002EI-Fq 3089c4b2f3cb4d0da7134d6b08d8bb24
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #461, was: p4: editorial suggestions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/517FD961.5020108@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17728
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 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.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University