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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:47:20 +1100
Message-Id: <5EC3AE7B-049D-4276-94D6-ABEB87BB548C@mnot.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: "Mike Whitehurst" <*@mike-whitehurst.co.uk>

Take a look at:
   http://www.w3.org/Mail/Request

If you still have problems, ping me and I'll work with the  
appropriate W3C folks.

Cheers,


On 2007/01/03, at 9:17 AM, Mike Whitehurst wrote:

>
> anyone know why i'm unable to unsubscribe from this group?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a- 
> travis@microsoft.com>
> To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>; "'Mark Nottingham'"  
> <mnot@mnot.net>
> Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 9:48 PM
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: 13.1.2's Definition of 1xx Warn-Codes
>
>
>
> Larry Masinter said:
>> > 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.
>
> 13.1.1 specifies when Warning headers need to be generated; it  
> defers to
> 14.46 when it comes to the actual warn-codes that need to be included.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Works for me, but I'd move "the rules for when a cache MUST or MUST  
> NOT..."
> bit to precede the table (since it applies to both 1xx and 2xx  
> codes), OR
> make it explicitly reference 1xx warn-codes and section 14.46  
> (since 3.1.1
> does not actually talk about 1xx warn-codes at all).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Travis
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 08:47:51 GMT

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