Re: Preference-Applied Response Header

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 07 March 2013 16:40 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 397CE21F8D2E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:40:05 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7H+TOdqRQ54x for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6240E21F8A43 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:40:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDdqO-0005L6-0w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:39:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:39:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDdqO-0005L6-0w@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDdqA-0005It-6F for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:38:46 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDdq8-0005zm-TU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:38:46 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.4]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MUSkP-1UNEK23f3T-00RKkl for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:38:17 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Mar 2013 16:38:17 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 07 Mar 2013 17:38:17 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18LyB4wbIMLOIJZ8GzNQKWbN6z2b7pYoIVluY1IDW w24/xfr05B5UGh
Message-ID: <5138C277.3030802@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:38:15 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <5138A514.3090803@andrew.cmu.edu> <5138B658.6050606@gmx.de> <5138C05C.6050103@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5138C05C.6050103@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.415, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UDdq8-0005zm-TU d5e3f97487f33fda16b4137070fcda68
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Preference-Applied Response Header
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5138C277.3030802@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16987
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 2013-03-07 17:29, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-03-07 15:32, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Its not overly important, but as I was coding this up, I started
>>> wondering how to categorize this response header in httpbis-22 terms.
>>> Would this header be considered part of Control Data, Response Context,
>>> Representation Metadata, or something else?  Right now, I'm leaning
>>> towards Control Data since Prefer is similar to Expect which is
>>> categorized as a Control.
>>>
>>> And while we're at it, what about these WebDAV response headers:
>>>
>>> DAV: similar to Allow => Response Context?
>>
>> Si.
>>
>>> Lock-Token: used in conditional requests => Validator?
>>
>> Nope, lock tokens (for the purpose of validation) are passed using
>> "If"...
>
> Unless I'm missing something, doesn't the presence of "if" make a method
> conditional?  The execution of state-changing method on a locked

Yes.

> resource is conditional upon validation of the correct lock-token in the
> "If" header (or "Lock-Token" in the case of UNLOCK).

Yes, for "If". No for "Lock-Token"; it's simply a parameter of the 
UNLOCK request (otherwise 422 would be correct when an incorrect 
lock-token is passed to UNLOCK).

Best regards, Julian