Re: p6 2.7, suggested resolutions to comments 10 & 11.

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 < 
 >. 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...


Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:04:01 UTC