- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:07:43 +1100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hearing nothing, I'll note it in the issue and mark for incorporation. On 27/11/2012, at 2:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/402> > > On 19/11/2012, at 7:33 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > >>>> 2) In the definitions of If-Match and If-None-Match, we don't specify whether >>> the weak or strong comparison function is to be used when these validations >>> actually occur, although we spend a lot of text on when to use weak vs. strong >>> ETags themselves. >>>> >>>> Now, you might say that an origin server can decide whether to use the weak >>> or strong function, but an intermediary or client cache doesn't have license to do >>> weak comparison, and could cause a lot of trouble if it did. AFAICT we don't >>> specify this, but I think we should. >> >> The weak ETag response *is* the license. >>> >>> I propose we specify that proxy and client caches MUST use the strong >>> comparison function with If-Match and If-None-Match. >> >> Why gut the intent of weak ETags? > > OK, makes sense. Any issue with documenting them as using the weak comparison function? > > Regards, > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 05:10:34 UTC