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

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

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:19:11 UTC