W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: p6 2.7, suggested resolutions to comments 10 & 11.

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:03:20 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A79460A3-EBAC-4A27-AA8E-686937CECF03@mnot.net>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>

On 24/07/2009, at 10:03 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> Comments to the comments in p6 2.7
> 2.7 Combining Responses
>        If the new response contains an ETag, it identifies the stored
>        response to use. [rfc.comment.10: may need language about
>        Content-Location here][rfc.comment.11: cover case where INM  
> with
>        multiple etags was sent]
> 10: Yes, with an almost identical sentence following
>        If the new response does not contains an ETag but contains an
>        Content-Location, it identifies the stored response to use.
>  covering the case where there is no ETag but Content-Location.

Perhaps, pending resolution of <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/167 
 >. You indicated there that you thought this use of Content-Location  
should be removed; have you changed your mind?

> 11: Don't see what needs to covered there. What's important is the  
> ETag
> found in the response, not which etag-values we sent in I-N-M. There
> will only be at most one ETag in the response.

Right, but the case where an INM was sent and there isn't an ETag in  
the response -- or the ETag doesn't match a stored one -- needs to be  
covered. This is actually a much larger issue...


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:04:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC