- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.
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.
>
> Proposed changed text:
>
> If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result
> in anything other than a 2xx (Successful), 304 (Not Modified), or 412
> (Precondition Failed) status code, then the If-None-Match header
> field MUST be ignored. (See Section 2.4 for a discussion of server
> behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the
> same request.)
>
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/370/370.diff>)
>
> Feedback appreciated,
>
> Julian
>
>
>
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:32:25 UTC