- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:03:20 +1000
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:04:01 UTC