IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last-Modified header in 304 and 206 responses

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 25 April 2012 05:18 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 76BE421F8705 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:18:16 -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 utHyXVtfTL-v for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0219821F8701 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SMubh-0003BX-K1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:17:37 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1SMubV-00039J-Qz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:17:25 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1SMubR-0002ti-Vg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:17:23 +0000
Received: from [10.4.229.38] (unknown [69.20.3.135]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A51E522E1EB; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:17:00 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACuKZqE5KDyk1soOfb_BrYgWF-gmQZzsu0dg2iV6KW2VtoW5fw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:16:56 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B285E404-AE01-4BAD-99AA-0D156C9C412B@mnot.net>
References: <CACuKZqE5KDyk1soOfb_BrYgWF-gmQZzsu0dg2iV6KW2VtoW5fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SMubR-0002ti-Vg 8c2fad27717769b36c9133fbdca7b1bb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Last-Modified header in 304 and 206 responses
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B285E404-AE01-4BAD-99AA-0D156C9C412B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13478
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SMubh-0003BX-K1@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:17:37 +0000

Thanks for noticing. This appears to be a leftover from <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/345>, which I've just reopened.

Cheers,


On 07/04/2012, at 9:28 AM, Zhong Yu wrote:

> In RFC2616, Last-Modified header was not allowed in 304 and 206(to an
> If-Range request)
> 
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.3.5
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.2.7
> 
> In draft 19, Last-Modified is allowed/required in 206/If-Range, but
> still forbidden in 304
> 
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19#section-4.1
>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-19#section-3.1
> 
> Any reason for the asymmetry?
> 
> Furthermore, why must we exclude other entity headers in 304 and
> 206/If-Range? There are only 3 of them: Content-Encoding,
> Content-Language, Content-Type. They can't have any meaningful impact
> on performance if they are included in the response. Do they really
> deserve a "SHOULD NOT be included"?
> 
> Zhong Yu
> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email