- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:07:49 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-04-23 05:47, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > * 2.1 "...avoid confusing cache behaviour." It's not just caches; suggest "...avoid undesired behaviour." <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2230> > * 3.1 "...instead they MUST respond with the 412 (Precondition Failed) status code." This is too strong; e.g., what if authentication is needed? Suggest an "unless..." clause allowing other error status codes. This is indeed a change from 2616 where we had: "If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match header MUST be ignored." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#header.if-match> The change happened between -21 and -22; maybe we should just go back to the original text? > * 3.2 needs a references to "unsafe" in p2. <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2230> > * 3.4 same problem with MUST respond as 3.1. > > * 5 Paragraphs two and three repeat what's been said previously in the document; are they necessary? From a quick glance section 5 provides a general overview of how things are designed to work; as such the text seems to be useful there. Do you see any problems besides the risk of inconsistencies with other text? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 13:08:21 UTC