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

> I think you may have a misguided assumption that all RFCs are

> somehow strictly enforced everywhere.  They are not.


I do not have this assumption. I am simply trying to understand what it means to be compliant with the RFC. When I read the language I cited, it seems to me that origin servers "MUST" implement the behavior described or they are not compliant with the RFC. If that is not the case, I would appreciate being educated on why that is not the case. What wording have I missed or misunderstood?


> Multiple reasons have already been given.  I'll repeat one:


> This is the nature of a heterogeneous internet with clients and servers

> of widely varying ages, protocol support, and simplicity/complexity.


I can understand that this is why some origin servers do not comply with the RFC. But this is not what I'm asking. i want to know what it means to be compliant. But maybe you mean that for this reason it is not necessary to follow the "MUST" provisions to be compliant with the RFC. I hope you don't mean that, because in that case it seems that all servers are vacuously compliant which is not particularly useful.


Mike