W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: #370: If-None-Match vs 412 vs ignoring the header field

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1207110818190.14753@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Julian Reschke wrote:

> From an off-list WGLC comment:
>
>>     3.2. If-None-Match
>>
>>         If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, 
>> result in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status code, then the If-None-
>> 
>> Should this list also include 412 listed above in the same section?
>
> I believe this is correct, the list needs to include 412 as well; opened 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/370> to track this.

I don't think it is correct, the rationale seems to be the use of a strong 
validator when a weak validator was possibly already applied (IMS) 
resulting in a 200 or 304.
If the request, without the INM results in a 412, so an error, 
transforming that in a 200 by virtue of the INM doesn't look correct.

>
> Proposed changed text:
>
>   If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result
>   in anything other than a 2xx (Successful), 304 (Not Modified), or 412
>   (Precondition Failed) status code, then the If-None-Match header
>   field MUST be ignored.  (See Section 2.4 for a discussion of server
>   behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the
>   same request.)
>
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/370/370.diff>)
>
> Feedback appreciated,
>
> Julian
>
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:32:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:32:35 GMT