W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: NEW ISSUE: 13.1.2's Definition of 1xx Warn-Codes

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:23:51 -0800
To: "'Travis Snoozy \(Volt\)'" <a-travis@microsoft.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c72eb4$4c5af990$93552099@adobenet.global.adobe.com>

> The modified proposal (after discussion) is ...
> "A cache MUST NOT generate 1xx warn-codes for any messages 
> except cache entries, and MUST NOT generate 1xx warn-codes
> for a cache entry except in response to a validation attempt
> for that entry. 1xx warn-codes MUST NOT be generated in
> Request messages."

I think this rewrite is worse than the text it
proposes to replace, as far as being misleading.
The text is part of a description of the differences
between 1xx warnings and 2xx warnings, and the
'right' rewrite is to make the descriptions more
parallel.

The actual conditions for when a 1xx warning 
may be generated (and MUST NOT) be generated
are contained in section 13.1.1. 

Probably the right thing to do is to tighten up the
language in 13.1.1 so that it is clearly normative,
and then chanage the 3.1.2 Warnings section so that
it doesn't attempt to summarize them more succinctly
than they can be. I'd suggest:

   1xx  Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
     the response. These warnings are generally deleted after
     successful validation (the rules for when a cache MUST or
     MUST NOT include or delete a warning response are in section 13.1.1.)

   2xx  Warnings that describe some aspect of the entity body or entity
     headers that is not rectified by a revalidation (for example, a
     lossy compression of the entity bodies). 2xx MUST NOT be
     deleted after a successful revalidation.
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 21:24:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT