Re: Confusion in preconditions

Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> Mon, 06 February 2012 04:27 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 803A221F8469 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:27:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 nxoymQ2zp1Td for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB7921F8468 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:27:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RuGAG-0002HG-HR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:26:52 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>) id 1RuGA8-0002FZ-6T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:26:44 +0000
Received: from vps1.henriknordstrom.net ([195.20.207.177]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>) id 1RuGA6-0005n2-DO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:26:43 +0000
Received: from home.henriknordstrom.net (183.159.216.81.static.tb.siw.siwnet.net [81.216.159.183]) by vps1.henriknordstrom.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id q164QJvq031851; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 04:26:19 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by home.henriknordstrom.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q164PfX3027789; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 05:25:41 +0100
Message-ID: <1328502341.16728.133.camel@home.henriknordstrom.net>
From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
To: Sebastien Lambla <seb@serialseb.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:25:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <3DDD0BE655869D4EA506652B3803AEF6C3519BA5@PRISM.caffeine-it.net>
References: <3DDD0BE655869D4EA506652B3803AEF6C3519BA5@PRISM.caffeine-it.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2 (3.2.2-1.fc16)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (vps1.henriknordstrom.net [195.20.207.177]); Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:26:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=195.20.207.177; envelope-from=henrik@henriknordstrom.net; helo=vps1.henriknordstrom.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1RuGA6-0005n2-DO ed5e6171fa18a3f4169db45606156209
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Confusion in preconditions
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1328502341.16728.133.camel@home.henriknordstrom.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12322
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: <E1RuGAG-0002HG-HR@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:26:52 +0000

ons 2012-02-01 klockan 02:35 +0000 skrev Sebastien Lambla:

> I *think* the specification does define partially a behavior when
> multiple conditional headers are present in the scenario leading to a
> 304, or am I misunderstanding the definition?

Not really. If does not define what the response should be in that case,
only that it can not be 304 unless.... 2.4 is just a safety guard
restricting the undefinedness by a forbidding response class which would
otherwise break caches.

The reason why the sencence about "undefined" is there is to point out
the headers can easily conflict and it's non-obvious to say how such
conflicts should be resolved.

Regards
Henrik