W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: If-Match vs. If-None-Match

From: Paul Hethmon <phethmon@utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:13:44 EST
Message-Id: <199605250713.1024075.7@hops.ag.utk.edu>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Addressed to: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
              http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com

** Reply to note from Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> 06/24/96  9:44pm MDT  

>  
> Or we could simply state (near the front) that as a general 
> principle, the action of a recipient that receives an internally 
> contradictory message is "undefined", and the implementor has 
> no obligation to do anything in particular (but should not 
> crash.)  As you've observed, this would probably be the result 
> of a bogus client implementation. 
>  
> I'd prefer the latter, since it doesn't require us to consider 
> all of the nonsensical permutations ahead of time. 
> 

Sounds reasonable to me. It's probably near impossible to find
all of the contradictory situations. I do think returning an error
message seems the best.

Leaving it undefined might be a little to open as one recipient may
choose to toss one of the contradictory headers and end up doing
something the sender doesn't intend.

I would choose to reply with an error message myself and let
the sender stew it over.

Paul


Paul Hethmon
phethmon@utk.edu
----------------------------------------------------------
Computerman -- Agricultural Policy Analysis Center
----------------------------------------------------------
NeoLogic Ftp & Mail Servers
----------------------------------------------------------
Knoxville Warp User's: http://apacweb.ag.utk.edu/os2
----------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 1996 04:19:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:04 EDT