W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: Minutes of HTTP/1.1 editorial teleconference, July 24, 1998

From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:26:52 -0700
Message-Id: <9807242226.AA02500@pachyderm.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, frystyk@w3.org, masinter@parc.xerox.com, paulle@microsoft.com, mogul@pa.dec.com, lawrence@agranat.com, fielding@ics.uci.edu, dmk@research.bell-labs.com

Several of us managed to get together on a teleconference again today to
discuss remaining issues: these were myself, Henrik Frystyk, Dave Kristol,
and Paul Leach.

Issues discussed (and usually resolved): IEBUG, MISTAKES, WARNGEN, VERSION 
see the minutes below.

IEBUG: We discussed IEBUG some more; Paul will check further with Josh Cohen
on this.  It isn't clear any action should be taken; but we don't
fully remember why the response was made a 416 code rather than a 200 series
code, and this is nagging us.  Jeff Mogul was not available for the call,
and he drafted the 416 description.  I will also check with Jeff to see
if he remembers the reason.

MISTAKES: 
Section 14.2: This change was made due to bug CHARSET-NIT editorial issue
and applied in Rev-02; you should have been able to catch this one
earlier.  I don't keep such a detailed issues list just for my health,
you know; it is for all our benefits as a sanity check on possible mistakes
slipping in.

See in the old issues list at 
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/BeforeLastCall.html#CHARSET-NIT. 
I might have made a mistake here, but Larry wasn't on our call, and he 
fields our character set questions.  Let this serve as a reminder that 
all issues, including ones I class as editorial, should be looked over.  
Please explain why I was wrong (if indeed I was)...  At the time, it looked 
to me like Howard was clearly right, and that was the best solution, but 
I'm not a character set guru.

Section 4, bullet 4 vs. 14.35.1.  We discussed this at length, and agree
that there is an implicit assumption here that may be best to make explicit.
Paul Leach agreed to try to draft some words on this one, and a way to
explain why the requirement exists.  As usual, this is a subtle problem
involving various versions of proxies, to keep it complicated.

WARNGEN:
It is really the same as the WARN-GEN editorial issue further down; there
was one place where in applying the changes, that a bit of care in the
changing words needed to be applied; Henrik and I figured out exactly which
word to change in this case.  This is now an editorial issue.

VERSION:
Unless there is objection, consider this a last call for the rewrite in
Jeff's message.

We also discussed the problem that when you do a PUT, you have no way
to get an entity tag back in the response to the initial PUT.  This
leaves a race where someone might update a resource before you can
get your hands on the Etag to do your own conditional operations.
Henrik, Dave and Paul continued discussing this after I had to go
to a doctor's appointment.  I suspect that this will be deferred to
a future working group, but don't know the outcome.
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 11:24:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:19 EDT