W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: Rigorously defining the interaction of conditional headers

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 03:36:37 -0800
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9803050338.aa11249@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5434
We already had an Issues list item for this (IMS_INM_MISMATCH)
based on


from last November.  The ambiguities regarding multiple conditionals
were first mentioned (by me) at the last LA IETF, and a solution was
posted a year ago in


>Dave and I have spent several days coming up with pseudo-code
>that, we believe, correctly represents the specified behavior
>in all possible cases.  It was agreed during this week's editorial
>teleconference that the next draft should include such pseudo-code,
>as an explanation of how to interpret the existing specification.

I am less interested in specifying pseudocode that represents strictly
what the specification (incompletely) says than I am in simply specifying
the precedence according to what the specification *should* say and then
fixing the contradictions in the spec.  This is not an easy problem, as I
warned when the WG insisted on separate conditional fields instead of
a single IF header field.  However, I cannot believe that the right
solution is to specify it in unreadable pseudocode -- at least choose
a language with structure.  It is in fact far less readable than the
actual code from Apache (and I know that the code works).

In any case, the pseudocode given does not do the right thing.

The order of the checks is important, since ETag checks are supposed
to be more accurate than checks relative to the modification time.
None of the checks are made if the response would already be an error.
Furthermore, some of the conditionals (If-Match and If-Unmodified-Since)
demand stronger action (higher precedence) due to their semantics
(i.e., a response of 412 always overrides a check of 200/304).
Finally, if a strong validation check is available, we do not care about
the result of any weaker validation check (and thus the weaker check must
not be performed).  These observations need to be added to the current
specification, preferably by grouping all of the conditional fields
under a single section and defining the precedence at the start.

The right procedure to follow is described in the Apache code+comments:

   if (the server has already decided to respond with an error)
      return with the error status;

   SRV := the selected resource variant

   if ((an If-Match request-header field was given) AND
       ((SRV does not have an ETag defined) OR
        ((SRV's ETag does not match any of the entity tags in that field) AND
         (the field value is not "*" [meaning match anything])))
      return with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed);
   else if ((a valid If-Unmodified-Since request-header field was given) AND
            (SRV has been modified since the IUS time))
      return with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed);

   if ((an If-None-Match request-header field was given) AND
       ((the field value is "*" [meaning match anything]) OR
        ((SRV has an ETag defined) AND 
         (SRV's ETag matches any of the entity tags in that field))))
      if (the request method was GET or HEAD)
         return with a status of 304 (Not Modified);
         return with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed);
   else if ((a valid If-Modified-Since request-header field was given) AND
            (the request method was GET or HEAD) AND
            (SRV has not been modified since the IMS time))
      return with a status of 304 (Not Modified);

   return SRV with the appropriate success status;

That can be added to the spec if desired, but the important thing is that
the specification must define a precedence in order to avoid contradictions.
Since precondition checks >> validation checks and etag checks > last_mod,
the only sensible precedence is

    If-Match > If-Unmodified-Since > If-None-Match > If-Modified-Since

Received on Thursday, 5 March 1998 03:42:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC