Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Response for unsupported conditional request

On 04.02.2025 14:53, Mike Kistler wrote:
>
>> Imagine that you had a new condition field called "If-YouFeelLikeIt".  There is no expectation that every resource on every
>> server supports that, so any MUST-level statement you make about processing that field comes with an implicit "if you
>> support and implement this field" attached.  Most servers and resources won't support this field and so clients cannot
>> expect that the condition would be followed.
>
> Well okay, but Section 5.1 of RFC 9110 says:
>
> New fields can be introduced without changing the protocol version if their defined semantics allow them to be safely ignored by recipients that do not recognize them; see Section 16.3.
>
> So is the rationale here that If-Match is "safely ignored by recipients"? And if that's the case, then why doesn't the RFC state this explicitly?

Well, if you combine it with a Range Request, it would be bad. Not to
mention PUT.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2025 16:38:47 UTC