- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: 2012年7月11日 08:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1207110818190.14753@wnl.j3.bet>
On 2012年7月10日, 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 ti騏 toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 12:32:25 UTC