- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:57:24 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-07-11 14:32, Yves Lafon wrote: > 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. The spec allows combining If-None-Match with If-Modified-Since. That field however does not define a case where 412 would be returned. So, indeed, it doesn't need to be mentioned here. If we *do* resolve <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371> however in a way that causes a 412 to be possible, we'll need to revisit this. > 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. As far as I can tell, "transforming into a 200" was not on the table. It seems, we need to resolve <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241> to make progress here. > ... Thanks for the feedback, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:58:07 UTC