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

Travis Snoozy said:
> Larry Masinter said:
> > >   1xx  Warnings that describe the freshness or revalidation status of
> > >     the response, and so MUST be deleted after a successful
> > >     revalidation. 1XX [sic] warn-codes MAY be generated by a
> > >     cache only when validating a cached entry. It MUST NOT be
> > >     generated by clients.
> >
> > What does the last sentence mean, anyway? A '1xx warn-code'
> > isn't a request header. So how would a Client 'generate' one
> > anyway?
>
> I interpret "generating" a 1xx warn-code to mean either adding a new
> Warning header with that warn code, or appending the warn-code to the last
> Warning header in a given message. I don't know if that's the intent or
> not (there's no explicit definition of "generate"), but I think it's a
> reasonable guess.

*light bulb goes off*

Ah. Pardon my temporary blindness; I reread your E-mail, and caught your
meaning. While Warning is a general header, 1xx warn-codes only make sense
in *Responses* (since Requests aren't cached and can't be [re]validated).
THAT is a very sensible interpretation; the wording in the spec was just so
non-specific (and in poor context) that I didn't even think about that.

So, another revision...

Proposed fix:


"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."


This leaves everyone else to generate 1xx warn-codes at their leisure, so long as those warn-codes are added only to Responses and NOT Requests.

Thanks!

-- Travis

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2006 19:40:25 UTC