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: Travis Snoozy (Volt) <a-travis@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:43:07 -0800
To: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <86EDC3963F04D546BED8996F77D290F6049D117E9F@NA-EXMSG-C138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Paul Leach said:
> I'd also point out that 14.46 doesn't seem to make the same distinction
> about deleting 1xx warn-codes and not deleting 2xx warn-codes -- it seems
> to treat them pretty much the same. To wit, from 14.46:
>
> "However, if a cache successfully validates a cache entry, it SHOULD
> remove any Warning headers previously attached to that entry except as
> specified for specific Warning codes."
>
> No distinction between 1xx and 2xx.

14.46 back-references to 13.1.2 (page 149):

"Requirements for the behavior of caches with respect to Warnings are stated
in section 13.1.2."

And 13.1.2 *does* distinguish between the cases, but I'm not immediately
convinced that it does so in a way that's compatible with the SHOULD clause
you reproduced above. It seems like a similar issue between the 13.1.2 MAY
and the 14.46 MUSTs.

> There's an awful lot of redundancy between 13.1.1-2 and 14.46.

I'd agree that there seems to be a lot of redundancy; all these different
locations seem to be trying to specify the same thing, or at least parts of
the same thing with overlap in between. But, how should we go about fixing
it?

<snip>


Thanks,

-- Travis
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:43:42 GMT

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