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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:57:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4FFD7834.8030303@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:58:17 GMT