Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 5, 2011, 3:49:27 PM (9 years ago)
Author:
fielding@…
Message:

editorial: rearrange p4 a bit more to split discussion of last-modified
from that of entity-tags, move entity-tags definition within the ETag
header field, and introduce sections for requirements on generation
and comparison of each (separately). This roughly halves the
cognitive complexity of the existing descriptions and allows us
to get rid of a lot of duplication (with more to come).

Moved some stray requirements on range requests to p5.

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
9 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p1-messaging.html

    r1258 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    410410      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    411411      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest">
    412       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     412      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    413413      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2145">
    414414      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    … …  
    442442            </tr>
    443443            <tr>
    444                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     444               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    445445               <td class="right">HP</td>
    446446            </tr>
    … …  
    495495            <tr>
    496496               <td class="left"></td>
    497                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     497               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    498498            </tr>
    499499         </tbody>
    … …  
    523523         in progress”.
    524524      </p>
    525       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     525      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    526526      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    527527      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

    r1257 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    409409      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    410410      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-latest">
    411       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     411      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    412412      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    413413      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 2 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 2 defines the semantics of HTTP messages as expressed by request methods, request header fields, response status codes, and response header fields.">
    … …  
    440440            </tr>
    441441            <tr>
    442                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     442               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    443443               <td class="right">HP</td>
    444444            </tr>
    … …  
    493493            <tr>
    494494               <td class="left"></td>
    495                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     495               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    496496            </tr>
    497497         </tbody>
    … …  
    520520         in progress”.
    521521      </p>
    522       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     522      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    523523      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    524524      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
    … …  
    12121212               <tr>
    12131213                  <td class="left">ETag</td>
    1214                   <td class="left"><a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 2.2.1</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a></td>
     1214                  <td class="left"><a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.8"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a></td>
    12151215               </tr>
    12161216               <tr>
    … …  
    15691569      </p>
    15701570      <p id="rfc.section.8.2.2.p.2">A 201 response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> contain an ETag response header field indicating the current value of the entity-tag for the representation of the resource
    1571          just created (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 2.2.1</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
     1571         just created (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.9"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
    15721572      </p>
    15731573      <div id="rfc.iref.26"></div>
    … …  
    32063206                  </li>
    32073207                  <li><em>Part4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.4">3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.5">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.6">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.7">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.8">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.9">8.2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.10">8.3.5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.11">8.4.13</a>, <a href="#Part4"><b>13.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.12">C.2</a><ul>
    3208                         <li><em>Section 2.2.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.8">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.9">8.2.2</a></li>
     3208                        <li><em>Section 2.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.8">5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.9">8.2.2</a></li>
    32093209                        <li><em>Section 3.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">3</a></li>
    32103210                        <li><em>Section 3.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">3</a></li>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p3-payload.html

    r1259 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    408408      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    409409      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-latest">
    410       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     410      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    411411      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    412412      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 3 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 3 defines HTTP message content, metadata, and content negotiation.">
    … …  
    434434            </tr>
    435435            <tr>
    436                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     436               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    437437               <td class="right">J. Mogul</td>
    438438            </tr>
    … …  
    491491            <tr>
    492492               <td class="left"></td>
    493                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     493               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    494494            </tr>
    495495         </tbody>
    … …  
    517517         in progress”.
    518518      </p>
    519       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     519      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    520520      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    521521      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html

    r1258 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    404404      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    405405      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-latest">
    406       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     406      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    407407      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    408408      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 4 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 4 defines request header fields for indicating conditional requests and the rules for constructing responses to those requests.">
    … …  
    430430            </tr>
    431431            <tr>
    432                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     432               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    433433               <td class="right">J. Mogul</td>
    434434            </tr>
    … …  
    487487            <tr>
    488488               <td class="left"></td>
    489                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     489               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    490490            </tr>
    491491         </tbody>
    … …  
    513513         in progress”.
    514514      </p>
    515       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     515      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    516516      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    517517      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
    … …  
    537537         </li>
    538538         <li>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#resource.metadata">Resource State Metadata (Validators)</a><ul>
    539                <li>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></li>
    540                <li>2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a><ul>
    541                      <li>2.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></li>
    542                      <li>2.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></li>
     539               <li>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a><ul>
     540                     <li>2.1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#lastmod.generation">Generation</a></li>
     541                     <li>2.1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#lastmod.comparison">Comparison</a></li>
    543542                  </ul>
    544543               </li>
    545                <li>2.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></li>
    546                <li>2.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates</a></li>
     544               <li>2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a><ul>
     545                     <li>2.2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tag.generation">Generation</a></li>
     546                     <li>2.2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak versus Strong</a></li>
     547                     <li>2.2.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tag.comparison">Comparison</a></li>
     548                     <li>2.2.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates</a></li>
     549                     <li>2.2.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></li>
     550                  </ul>
     551               </li>
    547552            </ul>
    548553         </li>
    … …  
    552557               <li>3.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></li>
    553558               <li>3.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></li>
     559               <li>3.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-range">If-Range</a></li>
    554560            </ul>
    555561         </li>
    … …  
    597603      <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines the HTTP/1.1 conditional request mechanisms, including both response metadata that can be used to indicate
    598604         or observe changes to resource state and request header fields that specify preconditions to be checked before performing
    599          the action given by the request method. Conditional GET requests are the most efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. Conditionals can be applied to state-changing methods, such as PUT and DELETE, to prevent the "lost update" problem: one
    600          client accidentally overwriting the work of another client that has been acting in parallel.
     605         the action given by the request method. Conditional GET requests are the most efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. Conditionals can also be applied to state-changing methods, such as PUT and DELETE, to prevent the "lost update" problem:
     606         one client accidentally overwriting the work of another client that has been acting in parallel.
    601607      </p>
    602608      <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">Conditional request preconditions are based on the state of the target resource as a whole (its current value set) or the
    … …  
    637643      <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification defines two forms of metadata that are commonly used to observe resource state and test for preconditions:
    638644         modification dates and opaque entity tags. Additional metadata that reflects resource state has been defined by various extensions
    639          of HTTP, such as WebDAV <a href="#RFC4918" id="rfc.xref.RFC4918.1"><cite title="HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)">[RFC4918]</cite></a>, that are beyond the scope of this specification. Such metadata is referred to as a "<dfn>validator</dfn>" when it is used within a precondition.
     645         of HTTP, such as WebDAV <a href="#RFC4918" id="rfc.xref.RFC4918.1"><cite title="HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)">[RFC4918]</cite></a>, that are beyond the scope of this specification. A resource metadata value is referred to as a "<dfn>validator</dfn>" when it is used within a precondition.
    640646      </p>
    641647      <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
    642648      <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
    643649      <h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.last-modified" href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
    644       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">The "Last-Modified" header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the representation was last
    645          modified.
     650      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">The "Last-Modified" header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the selected representation
     651         was last modified.
    646652      </p>
    647653      <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    648654</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">An example of its use is</p>
    649655      <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="text">  Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
    650 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">A representation is typically the sum of many parts behind the resource interface. The last-modified time would usually be
     656</pre><h3 id="rfc.section.2.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1.1">2.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="lastmod.generation" href="#lastmod.generation">Generation</a></h3>
     657      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.1.p.1">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified for any selected representation for which a last modification date can be reasonably and consistently determined,
     658         since its use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) results in a substantial reduction of HTTP traffic on the Internet and can be a significant factor in improving service
     659         scalability and reliability.
     660      </p>
     661      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.1.p.2">A representation is typically the sum of many parts behind the resource interface. The last-modified time would usually be
    651662         the most recent time that any of those parts were changed. How that value is determined for any given resource is an implementation
    652663         detail beyond the scope of this specification. What matters to HTTP is how recipients of the Last-Modified header field can
    653664         use its value to make conditional requests and test the validity of locally cached responses.
    654665      </p>
    655       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.6">An origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a Last-Modified date which is later than the server's time of message origination. In such cases, where the resource's
    656          last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that date with the message origination date.
    657       </p>
    658       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the representation as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of
    659          its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the representation's modification time, especially
     666      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.1.p.3">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the representation as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date field-value
     667         for its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the representation's modification time, especially
    660668         if the representation changes near the time that the response is generated.
    661669      </p>
    662       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.8">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
    663       </p>
    664       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.9">The Last-Modified header field value is often used as a cache validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered to be
    665          valid if the representation has not been modified since the Last-Modified value.
    666       </p>
    667       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tags" href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></h2>
    668       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1">Entity-tags are used for comparing two or more representations of the same resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity-tags in the ETag
    669          (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.2.1</a>), If-Match (<a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>), If-None-Match (<a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>), and If-Range (<a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 5.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) header fields. The definition of how they are used and compared as cache validators is in <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>. An entity-tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
    670       </p>
    671       <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a> ] <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a>
    672   <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a>       = %x57.2F ; "W/", case-sensitive
    673   <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a>
    674 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">A "strong entity-tag" <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two representations of a resource only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
    675       </p>
    676       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.4">A "weak entity-tag", indicated by the "W/" prefix, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two representations of a resource. A weak entity-tag can only be used for weak comparison.
    677       </p>
    678       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.5">Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it is inappropriate to expect
    679          that a cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past. A
    680          strong entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all representations associated with a particular resource over time. However, there is no
    681          implication of uniqueness across entity-tags of different resources (i.e., the same entity-tag value might be in use for representations
    682          of multiple resources at the same time and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
     670      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.1.p.4">An origin server with a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a Last-Modified date that is later than the server's time of message origination (Date). If the last modification time
     671         is derived from implementation-specific metadata that evaluates to some time in the future, according to the origin server's
     672         clock, then the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that value with the message origination date. This prevents a future modification date from having an adverse impact
     673         on cache validation.
     674      </p>
     675      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1.2">2.1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="lastmod.comparison" href="#lastmod.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
     676      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.2.p.1">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
     677         strong, using the following rules:
     678      </p>
     679      <ul>
     680         <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the representation and,</li>
     681         <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did not change twice during the second covered by the
     682            presented validator.
     683         </li>
     684      </ul>
     685      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.2.p.2">or </p>
     686      <ul>
     687         <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header field, because the client
     688            has a cache entry for the associated representation, and
     689         </li>
     690         <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     691         <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     692      </ul>
     693      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.2.p.3">or </p>
     694      <ul>
     695         <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the representation,
     696            and
     697         </li>
     698         <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     699         <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     700      </ul>
     701      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.2.p.4">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
     702         both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
     703         time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
     704         different clocks, or at somewhat different times during the preparation of the response. An implementation <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is believed that 60 seconds is too short.
    683705      </p>
    684706      <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
    685707      <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
    686       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h3>
    687       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">The "ETag" header field provides the current value of the entity-tag (see <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>) for one representation of the target resource. An entity-tag is intended for use as a resource-local identifier for differentiating
    688          between representations of the same resource that vary over time or via content negotiation (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>).
    689       </p>
    690       <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    691 </pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div>
     708      <h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
     709      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1">The ETag header field provides the current entity-tag for the selected representation. An entity-tag is an opaque validator
     710         for differentiating between multiple representations of the same resource, regardless of whether those multiple representations
     711         are due to resource state changes over time, content negotiation resulting in multiple representations being valid at the
     712         same time, or both. An entity-tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
     713      </p>
     714      <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>       = <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     715
     716  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">weak</a> ] <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a>
     717  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">weak</a>       = %x57.2F ; "W/", case-sensitive
     718  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a>
     719</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">An entity-tag can be more reliable for validation than a modification date in situations where it is inconvenient to store
     720         modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient, or where modification dates are
     721         not consistently maintained.
     722      </p>
     723      <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div>
    692724      <p>Examples:</p>  <pre class="text">  ETag: "xyzzy"
    693725  ETag: W/"xyzzy"
    694726  ETag: ""
    695 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.4">An entity-tag provides an "opaque" cache validator that allows for more reliable validation than modification dates in situations
    696          where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient,
    697          or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification dates.
    698       </p>
    699       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.5">The principle behind entity-tags is that only the service author knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an
    700          appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality
    701          would open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other header fields (except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0)
    702          are never used for purposes of validating a cache entry.
    703       </p>
    704       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.2">2.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg" href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></h3>
    705       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.1">Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (<a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 5</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>), and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on the Accept-Encoding request header field (<a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept-encoding" title="Accept-Encoding">Section 6.3</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>):
    706       </p>
    707       <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div>
    708       <p>&gt;&gt; Request:</p><pre class="text2">GET /index HTTP/1.1
    709 Host: www.example.com
    710 Accept-Encoding: gzip
    711 
    712 </pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.3">In this case, the response might or might not use the gzip content coding. If it does not, the response might look like:</p>
    713       <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div>
    714       <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    715 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    716 ETag: "123-a"
    717 Content-Length: 70
    718 Vary: Accept-Encoding
    719 Content-Type: text/plain
    720 
    721 <span id="exbody">Hello World!
    722 Hello World!
    723 Hello World!
    724 Hello World!
    725 Hello World!
    726 </span></pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.5">An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:</p>
    727       <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div>
    728       <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    729 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    730 ETag: "123-b"
    731 Content-Length: 43
    732 Vary: Accept-Encoding
    733 Content-Type: text/plain
    734 Content-Encoding: gzip
    735 
    736 <em>...binary data...</em></pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.7">
    737          <p> <b>Note:</b> Content codings are a property of the representation, so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation must be distinct
    738             from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates and range requests. In contrast, transfer codings
    739             (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 6.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
    740          </p>
    741       </div>
    742       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3">2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="weak.and.strong.validators" href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></h2>
    743       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different representations,
     727</pre><h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tag.generation" href="#entity.tag.generation">Generation</a></h3>
     728      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">The principle behind entity-tags is that only the service author knows the implementation of a resource well enough to select
     729         the most accurate and efficient validation mechanism for that resource, and that any such mechanism can be mapped to a simple
     730         sequence of octets for easy comparison. Since the value is opaque, there is no need for the client to be aware of how each
     731         entity-tag is constructed.
     732      </p>
     733      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">For example, a resource that has implementation-specific versioning applied to all changes might use an internal revision
     734         number, perhaps combined with a variance identifier for content negotiation, to accurately differentiate between representations.
     735         Other implementations might use a stored hash of representation content, a combination of various filesystem attributes, or
     736         a modification timestamp that has sub-second resolution.
     737      </p>
     738      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.3">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send ETag for any selected representation for which detection of changes can be reasonably and consistently determined, since
     739         the entity-tag's use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) can result in a substantial reduction of HTTP network traffic and can be a significant factor in improving service scalability
     740         and reliability.
     741      </p>
     742      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.2">2.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="weak.and.strong.validators" href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak versus Strong</a></h3>
     743      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they indicate the same or different representations,
    744744         one normally would expect that if the representation (including both representation header fields and representation body)
    745          changes in any way, then the associated validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong
     745         changes in any way, then the associated validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call that validator a "strong
    746746         validator". One example of a strong validator is an integer that is incremented in stable storage every time a representation
    747747         is changed.
    748748      </p>
    749       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only when it desires cached representations to
     749      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only when it desires cached representations to
    750750         be invalidated. For example, the representation of a weather report that changes in content every second, based on dynamic
    751751         measurements, might be grouped into sets of equivalent representations (from the origin server's perspective) in order to
    … …  
    753753         or weather quality). A validator that does not always change when the representation changes is a "weak validator".
    754754      </p>
    755       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.3">An entity-tag is normally a strong validator, but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity-tag as "weak". One can
    756          think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific representation, whereas a weak validator is part of an
    757          identifier for a set of equivalent representations (where this notion of equivalence is entirely governed by the origin server
    758          and beyond the scope of this specification).
    759       </p>
     755      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.3">One can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific representation, whereas a weak validator is part
     756         of an identifier for a set of equivalent representations (where this notion of equivalence is entirely governed by the origin
     757         server and beyond the scope of this specification).
     758      </p>
     759      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.4">An entity-tag is normally a strong validator, but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity-tag as "weak". </p>
    760760      <ul class="empty">
    761761         <li>A representation's modification time, if defined with only one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible
    … …  
    767767         </li>
    768768      </ul>
    769       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.4">A strong entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> change whenever the associated representation changes in any way. A weak entity-tag <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change whenever the origin server considers prior representations to be unacceptable as a substitute for the current representation.
     769      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.5">A strong entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> change whenever the associated representation changes in any way. A weak entity-tag <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change whenever the origin server considers prior representations to be unacceptable as a substitute for the current representation.
    770770         In other words, a weak entity tag <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change whenever the origin server wants caches to invalidate old responses.
    771771      </p>
    772       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.5">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a validating header field,
    773          or when a server compares two validators.
    774       </p>
    775       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.6">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
    776          of a representation. For example, either kind is usable for a normal conditional GET. However, only a strong validator is
    777          usable for range retrieval (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>), since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent representation. Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in range requests.
    778       </p>
    779       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.7">The only function that HTTP/1.1 defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending
    780          on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:
     772      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.6">A "strong entity-tag" <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two representations of a resource only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
     773      </p>
     774      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.7">A "weak entity-tag", indicated by the "W/" prefix, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two representations of a resource. A weak entity-tag can only be used for weak comparison.
     775      </p>
     776      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.8">Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times. Thus, a cache might attempt to validate
     777         an entry using a validator that it obtained in the distant past. A strong entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all representations associated with a particular resource over time. However, there is no
     778         implication of uniqueness across entity-tags of different resources (i.e., the same entity-tag value might be in use for representations
     779         of multiple resources at the same time and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
     780      </p>
     781      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.3">2.2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tag.comparison" href="#entity.tag.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
     782      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.3.p.1">There are two entity-tag comparison functions, depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators
     783         or not:
    781784      </p>
    782785      <ul>
    … …  
    786789         </li>
    787790      </ul>
    788       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.8">The example below shows the results for a set of entity-tag pairs, and both the weak and strong comparison function results:</p>
     791      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.3.p.2">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a precondition, or when a
     792         server compares two validators.
     793      </p>
     794      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.3.p.3">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
     795         of a representation. For example, either kind is usable for a normal conditional GET.
     796      </p>
     797      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.3.p.4">The example below shows the results for a set of entity-tag pairs, and both the weak and strong comparison function results:</p>
    789798      <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
    790799         <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    … …  
    825834         </table>
    826835      </div>
    827       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.9">An entity-tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2.2</a> gives the syntax for entity-tags.
    828       </p>
    829       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.10">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
    830          strong, using the following rules:
    831       </p>
    832       <ul>
    833          <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the representation and,</li>
    834          <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did not change twice during the second covered by the
    835             presented validator.
    836          </li>
    837       </ul>
    838       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.11">or </p>
    839       <ul>
    840          <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header field, because the client
    841             has a cache entry for the associated representation, and
    842          </li>
    843          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    844          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    845       </ul>
    846       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.12">or </p>
    847       <ul>
    848          <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the representation,
    849             and
    850          </li>
    851          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    852          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    853       </ul>
    854       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.13">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
    855          both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
    856          time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
    857          different clocks, or at somewhat different times during the preparation of the response. An implementation <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is believed that 60 seconds is too short.
    858       </p>
    859       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.14">If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator,
    860          it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here.
    861       </p>
    862       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.15">A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
    863       </p>
    864       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.16">These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range retrievals on values that have been obtained from
    865          HTTP/1.0 servers.
    866       </p>
    867       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.2.4">2.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates</a></h2>
    868       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
     836      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.3.p.5">An entity-tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak.</p>
     837      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.4">2.2.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates</a></h3>
     838      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
    869839         ought to be used, and for what purposes.
    870840      </p>
    871       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
     841      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
    872842      <ul>
    873843         <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity-tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
    … …  
    879849         </li>
    880850      </ul>
    881       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.3">In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 origin server is to send both a strong entity-tag and a Last-Modified
     851      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.3">In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 origin server is to send both a strong entity-tag and a Last-Modified
    882852         value.
    883853      </p>
    884       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.4">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
     854      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.4">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
    885855      <ul>
    886856         <li><em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use that entity-tag in any cache-conditional request (using If-Match or If-None-Match) if an entity-tag has been provided
    … …  
    897867         </li>
    898868      </ul>
    899       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.5">An HTTP/1.1 origin server, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an If-Modified-Since
     869      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.5">An HTTP/1.1 origin server, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an If-Modified-Since
    900870         or If-Unmodified-Since header field) and one or more entity-tags (e.g., in an If-Match, If-None-Match, or If-Range header
    901871         field) as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a response status code of 304 (Not Modified) unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields
    902872         in the request.
    903873      </p>
    904       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.6">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity-tags
     874      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.4.p.6">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity-tags
    905875         as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a locally cached response to the client unless that cached response is consistent with all of the conditional header
    906876         fields in the request.
    … …  
    917887         </li>
    918888      </ul>
     889      <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.5"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.5">2.2.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg" href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></h3>
     890      <p id="rfc.section.2.2.5.p.1">Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (<a href="p3-payload.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 5</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>), and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on the Accept-Encoding request header field (<a href="p3-payload.html#header.accept-encoding" title="Accept-Encoding">Section 6.3</a> of <a href="#Part3" id="rfc.xref.Part3.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation">[Part3]</cite></a>):
     891      </p>
     892      <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div>
     893      <p>&gt;&gt; Request:</p><pre class="text2">GET /index HTTP/1.1
     894Host: www.example.com
     895Accept-Encoding: gzip
     896
     897</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.5.p.3">In this case, the response might or might not use the gzip content coding. If it does not, the response might look like:</p>
     898      <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div>
     899      <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     900Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
     901ETag: "123-a"
     902Content-Length: 70
     903Vary: Accept-Encoding
     904Content-Type: text/plain
     905
     906<span id="exbody">Hello World!
     907Hello World!
     908Hello World!
     909Hello World!
     910Hello World!
     911</span></pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.5.p.5">An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:</p>
     912      <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div>
     913      <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     914Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
     915ETag: "123-b"
     916Content-Length: 43
     917Vary: Accept-Encoding
     918Content-Type: text/plain
     919Content-Encoding: gzip
     920
     921<em>...binary data...</em></pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.2.5.p.7">
     922         <p> <b>Note:</b> Content codings are a property of the representation, so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation must be distinct
     923            from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates and range requests. In contrast, transfer codings
     924            (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 6.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>) apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
     925         </p>
     926      </div>
    919927      <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Precondition Header Fields</a></h1>
    920928      <p id="rfc.section.3.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields for applying preconditions on requests.</p>
    … …  
    927935         An If-Match field-value of "*" places the precondition on the existence of any current representation for the target resource.
    928936      </p>
    929       <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     937      <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    930938</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">If any of the entity-tags listed in the If-Match field value match the entity-tag of the selected representation for the target
    931939         resource, or if "*" is given and any current representation exists for the target resource, then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the request method as if the If-Match header field was not present.
    … …  
    937945      </p>
    938946      <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">Examples:</p>
    939       <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">  If-Match: "xyzzy"
     947      <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="text">  If-Match: "xyzzy"
    940948  If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    941949  If-Match: *
    … …  
    957965         for the target resource.
    958966      </p>
    959       <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     967      <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    960968</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.4">If any of the entity-tags listed in the If-None-Match field-value match the entity-tag of the selected representation, or
    961969         if "*" is given and any current representation exists for that resource, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method. Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a 304 (Not Modified) status code, including the cache-related header fields (particularly ETag) of the selected
    … …  
    965973      </p>
    966974      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.6">If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status code, then
    967          the If-None-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored. (See <a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" title="Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates">Section&nbsp;2.4</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
     975         the If-None-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored. (See <a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" title="Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates">Section&nbsp;2.2.4</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
    968976      </p>
    969977      <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.7">Examples:</p>
    970       <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">  If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
     978      <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="text">  If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
    971979  If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy"
    972980  If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    … …  
    982990         the time specified in this field, then do not perform the request method; instead, respond as detailed below.
    983991      </p>
    984       <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     992      <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    985993</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    986       <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">  If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     994      <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="text">  If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    987995</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header field and no Range header field requests that the selected representation be
    988996         transferred only if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header field. The algorithm for determining
    … …  
    10021010      <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
    10031011      <ul class="empty">
    1004          <li> <b>Note:</b> The Range header field modifies the meaning of If-Modified-Since; see <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 5.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
     1012         <li> <b>Note:</b> The Range header field modifies the meaning of If-Modified-Since; see <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 5.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
    10051013         </li>
    10061014         <li> <b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
    … …  
    10301038         the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the request method as if the If-Unmodified-Since header field were not present.
    10311039      </p>
    1032       <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     1040      <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    10331041</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    1034       <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="text">  If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     1042      <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="text">  If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    10351043</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.5">If the request normally (i.e., without the If-Unmodified-Since header field) would result in anything other than a 2xx or
    10361044         412 status code, the If-Unmodified-Since header field <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
    … …  
    10401048      <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.7">The result of a request having both an If-Unmodified-Since header field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since
    10411049         header fields is undefined by this specification.
     1050      </p>
     1051      <h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-range" href="#header.if-range">If-Range</a></h2>
     1052      <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.1">The If-Range header field provides a special conditional request mechanism that is similar to If-Match and If-Unmodified-Since
     1053         but specific to HTTP range requests. If-Range is defined in <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 5.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>.
    10421054      </p>
    10431055      <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.code.definitions" href="#status.code.definitions">Status Code Definitions</a></h1>
    … …  
    11201132                  <td class="left">http</td>
    11211133                  <td class="left">standard</td>
    1122                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.2" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.2.1</a>
     1134                  <td class="left"> <a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>
    11231135                  </td>
    11241136               </tr>
    … …  
    11271139                  <td class="left">http</td>
    11281140                  <td class="left">standard</td>
    1129                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.2" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>
     1141                  <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>
    11301142                  </td>
    11311143               </tr>
    … …  
    11411153                  <td class="left">http</td>
    11421154                  <td class="left">standard</td>
    1143                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>
     1155                  <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>
    11441156                  </td>
    11451157               </tr>
    … …  
    12401252      </div>
    12411253      <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h1>
    1242       <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">Allow weak entity-tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">2.3</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.3" title="If-None-Match">3.2</a>).
     1254      <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">Allow weak entity-tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">2.2.2</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">3.2</a>).
    12431255      </p>
    12441256      <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field value. (<a href="#header.fields" title="Precondition Header Fields">Section&nbsp;3</a>)
    12451257      </p>
    12461258      <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a id="collected.abnf" href="#collected.abnf">Collected ABNF</a></h1>
    1247       <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div> <pre class="inline"><a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = entity-tag
     1259      <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div> <pre class="inline"><a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = entity-tag
    12481260
    12491261<a href="#notation" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a> = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in [Part1], Section 6.1&gt;
    … …  
    12601272<a href="#notation" class="smpl">OWS</a> = &lt;OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2&gt;
    12611273
    1262 <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ weak ] opaque-tag
    1263 
    1264 <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a> = quoted-string
     1274<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ weak ] opaque-tag
     1275
     1276<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a> = quoted-string
    12651277
    12661278<a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> = &lt;quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2&gt;
    12671279
    1268 <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a> = %x57.2F ; W/
    1269 </pre> <div id="rfc.figure.u.19"></div>
     1280<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">weak</a> = %x57.2F ; W/
     1281</pre> <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div>
    12701282      <p>ABNF diagnostics:</p><pre class="inline">; ETag defined but not used
    12711283; If-Match defined but not used
    … …  
    13921404            </li>
    13931405            <li><a id="rfc.index.E" href="#rfc.index.E"><b>E</b></a><ul>
    1394                   <li>ETag header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.e.1"><b>2.2.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.2">5.2</a></li>
     1406                  <li>ETag header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.e.1"><b>2.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.1">5.2</a></li>
    13951407               </ul>
    13961408            </li>
    … …  
    13981410                  <li><tt>Grammar</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;
    13991411                     <ul>
    1400                         <li><tt>entity-tag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.2"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
    1401                         <li><tt>ETag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.5"><b>2.2.1</b></a></li>
     1412                        <li><tt>entity-tag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.3"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
     1413                        <li><tt>ETag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.2"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
    14021414                        <li><tt>If-Match</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.6"><b>3.1</b></a></li>
    14031415                        <li><tt>If-Modified-Since</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.8"><b>3.3</b></a></li>
    … …  
    14051417                        <li><tt>If-Unmodified-Since</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.9"><b>3.4</b></a></li>
    14061418                        <li><tt>Last-Modified</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.1"><b>2.1</b></a></li>
    1407                         <li><tt>opaque-tag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.4"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
    1408                         <li><tt>weak</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.3"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
     1419                        <li><tt>opaque-tag</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.5"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
     1420                        <li><tt>weak</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.4"><b>2.2</b></a></li>
    14091421                     </ul>
    14101422                  </li>
    … …  
    14141426                  <li>Header Fields&nbsp;&nbsp;
    14151427                     <ul>
    1416                         <li>ETag&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.h.2"><b>2.2.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.2">5.2</a></li>
    1417                         <li>If-Match&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.h.3"><b>3.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.2">5.2</a></li>
     1428                        <li>ETag&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.2"><b>2.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.etag.1">5.2</a></li>
     1429                        <li>If-Match&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.3"><b>3.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.1">5.2</a></li>
    14181430                        <li>If-Modified-Since&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.5"><b>3.3</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1">5.2</a></li>
    1419                         <li>If-None-Match&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.h.4"><b>3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2">5.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.3">A</a></li>
     1431                        <li>If-None-Match&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.4"><b>3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1">5.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2">A</a></li>
    14201432                        <li>If-Unmodified-Since&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.6"><b>3.4</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1">5.2</a></li>
    14211433                        <li>Last-Modified&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.h.1"><b>2.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.last-modified.1">5.2</a></li>
    … …  
    14251437            </li>
    14261438            <li><a id="rfc.index.I" href="#rfc.index.I"><b>I</b></a><ul>
    1427                   <li>If-Match header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.i.1"><b>3.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.2">5.2</a></li>
     1439                  <li>If-Match header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.i.1"><b>3.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-match.1">5.2</a></li>
    14281440                  <li>If-Modified-Since header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.i.3"><b>3.3</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1">5.2</a></li>
    1429                   <li>If-None-Match header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.iref.i.2"><b>3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2">5.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.3">A</a></li>
     1441                  <li>If-None-Match header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.i.2"><b>3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1">5.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2">A</a></li>
    14301442                  <li>If-Unmodified-Since header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.i.4"><b>3.4</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1">5.2</a></li>
    14311443               </ul>
    … …  
    14401452            </li>
    14411453            <li><a id="rfc.index.P" href="#rfc.index.P"><b>P</b></a><ul>
    1442                   <li><em>Part1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">2.2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">6</a>, <a href="#Part1"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
     1454                  <li><em>Part1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">2.2.5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">4.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.8">6</a>, <a href="#Part1"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
    14431455                        <li><em>Section 1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.1">1.2</a></li>
    14441456                        <li><em>Section 1.2.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.2">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.3">1.2</a></li>
    14451457                        <li><em>Section 6.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.4">1.2</a></li>
    1446                         <li><em>Section 6.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">2.2.2</a></li>
     1458                        <li><em>Section 6.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.5">2.2.5</a></li>
    14471459                        <li><em>Section 9.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.6">4.1</a></li>
    14481460                        <li><em>Section 9.3.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part1.7">4.1</a></li>
    14491461                     </ul>
    14501462                  </li>
    1451                   <li><em>Part3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">2.2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">2.2.2</a>, <a href="#Part3"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
    1452                         <li><em>Section 5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">2.2.2</a></li>
    1453                         <li><em>Section 6.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">2.2.2</a></li>
     1463                  <li><em>Part3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">2.2.5</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">2.2.5</a>, <a href="#Part3"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
     1464                        <li><em>Section 5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.1">2.2.5</a></li>
     1465                        <li><em>Section 6.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part3.2">2.2.5</a></li>
    14541466                     </ul>
    14551467                  </li>
    1456                   <li><em>Part5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.1">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.2">2.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.3">2.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.4">3.3</a>, <a href="#Part5"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
    1457                         <li><em>Section 5.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.1">2.2</a></li>
    1458                         <li><em>Section 5.4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.4">3.3</a></li>
     1468                  <li><em>Part5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.1">3.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.2">3.5</a>, <a href="#Part5"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
     1469                        <li><em>Section 5.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.2">3.5</a></li>
     1470                        <li><em>Section 5.4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part5.1">3.3</a></li>
    14591471                     </ul>
    14601472                  </li>
    1461                   <li><em>Part6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part6.1">1</a>, <a href="#Part6"><b>8.1</b></a></li>
     1473                  <li><em>Part6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part6.1">1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part6.2">2.1.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part6.3">2.2.1</a>, <a href="#Part6"><b>8.1</b></a></li>
    14621474               </ul>
    14631475            </li>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.xml

    r1254 r1260  
    221221   specify preconditions to be checked before performing the action
    222222   given by the request method.  Conditional GET requests are the most
    223    efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates &caching;.  Conditionals can be
     223   efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates &caching;.  Conditionals
     224   can also be
    224225   applied to state-changing methods, such as PUT and DELETE, to prevent
    225226   the "lost update" problem: one client accidentally overwriting
    … …  
    313314   has been defined by various extensions of HTTP, such as WebDAV
    314315   <xref target="RFC4918"/>, that are beyond the scope of this specification.
    315    Such metadata is referred to as a "<x:dfn>validator</x:dfn>" when it is
    316    used within a precondition.
     316   A resource metadata value is referred to as a "<x:dfn>validator</x:dfn>"
     317   when it is used within a precondition.
    317318</t>
    318319
    … …  
    323324<t>
    324325   The "Last-Modified" header field indicates the date and time at
    325    which the origin server believes the representation was last modified.
     326   which the origin server believes the selected representation was
     327   last modified.
    326328</t>
    327329<figure><artwork type="abnf2616"><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="Last-Modified"/>
    … …  
    334336  Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
    335337</artwork></figure>
     338
     339<section title="Generation" anchor="lastmod.generation">
     340<t>
     341   Origin servers &SHOULD; send Last-Modified for any selected
     342   representation for which a last modification date can be reasonably
     343   and consistently determined, since its use in conditional requests
     344   and evaluating cache freshness (&caching;) results in a substantial
     345   reduction of HTTP traffic on the Internet and can be a significant
     346   factor in improving service scalability and reliability.
     347</t>
    336348<t>
    337349   A representation is typically the sum of many parts behind the
    … …  
    345357</t>
    346358<t>
    347    An origin server &MUST-NOT; send a Last-Modified date which is later
    348    than the server's time of message origination. In such cases, where
    349    the resource's last modification would indicate some time in the
    350    future, the server &MUST; replace that date with the message
    351    origination date.
    352 </t>
    353 <t>
    354    An origin server &SHOULD; obtain the Last-Modified value of the representation
    355    as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of
    356    its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment
    357    of the representation's modification time, especially if the representation changes
    358    near the time that the response is generated.
    359 </t>
    360 <t>
    361    HTTP/1.1 servers &SHOULD; send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
    362 </t>
    363 <t>
    364    The Last-Modified header field value is often used as a cache
    365    validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered to be valid
    366    if the representation has not been modified since the Last-Modified value.
    367 </t>
    368 </section>
    369 
    370 <section title="Entity Tags" anchor="entity.tags">
     359   An origin server &SHOULD; obtain the Last-Modified value of the
     360   representation as close as possible to the time that it generates
     361   the Date field-value for its response. This allows a recipient to
     362   make an accurate assessment of the representation's modification time,
     363   especially if the representation changes near the time that the
     364   response is generated.
     365</t>
     366<t>
     367   An origin server with a clock &MUST-NOT; send a Last-Modified date
     368   that is later than the server's time of message origination (Date).
     369   If the last modification time is derived from implementation-specific
     370   metadata that evaluates to some time in the future, according to the
     371   origin server's clock, then the origin server &MUST; replace that
     372   value with the message origination date. This prevents a future
     373   modification date from having an adverse impact on cache validation.
     374</t>
     375</section>
     376
     377<section title="Comparison" anchor="lastmod.comparison">
     378<t>
     379   A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is
     380   implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is strong,
     381   using the following rules:
     382  <list style="symbols">
     383     <t>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the
     384        actual current validator for the representation and,</t>
     385     <t>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did
     386        not change twice during the second covered by the presented
     387        validator.</t>
     388  </list>
     389</t>
     390<t>
     391   or
     392  <list style="symbols">
     393     <t>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since
     394        or If-Unmodified-Since header field, because the client
     395        has a cache entry for the associated representation, and</t>
     396     <t>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
     397        when the origin server sent the original response, and</t>
     398     <t>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
     399        the Date value.</t>
     400  </list>
     401</t>
     402<t>
     403   or
     404  <list style="symbols">
     405     <t>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the
     406        validator stored in its cache entry for the representation, and</t>
     407     <t>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
     408        when the origin server sent the original response, and</t>
     409     <t>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
     410        the Date value.</t>
     411  </list>
     412</t>
     413<t>
     414   This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were
     415   sent by the origin server during the same second, but both had the
     416   same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would
     417   have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-second
     418   limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified
     419   values are generated from different clocks, or at somewhat
     420   different times during the preparation of the response. An
     421   implementation &MAY; use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is
     422   believed that 60 seconds is too short.
     423</t>
     424</section>
     425</section>
     426
     427<section title="ETag" anchor="header.etag">
     428  <iref primary="true" item="ETag header field" x:for-anchor=""/>
     429  <iref primary="true" item="Header Fields" subitem="ETag" x:for-anchor=""/>
     430  <x:anchor-alias value="ETag"/>
    371431  <x:anchor-alias value="entity-tag"/>
     432  <x:anchor-alias value="entity.tags"/>
    372433  <x:anchor-alias value="opaque-tag"/>
    373434  <x:anchor-alias value="weak"/>
    374435<t>
    375    Entity-tags are used for comparing two or more representations of the same
    376    resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity-tags in the ETag (<xref target="header.etag"/>),
    377    If-Match (<xref target="header.if-match"/>), If-None-Match (<xref target="header.if-none-match"/>), and
    378    If-Range (&header-if-range;) header fields. The definition of how they
    379    are used and compared as cache validators is in <xref target="weak.and.strong.validators"/>. An
    380    entity-tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by
    381    a weakness indicator.
    382 </t>
    383 <figure><artwork type="abnf2616"><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="entity-tag"/><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="weak"/><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="opaque-tag"/>
     436   The ETag header field provides the current entity-tag for the
     437   selected representation.
     438   An entity-tag is an opaque validator for differentiating between
     439   multiple representations of the same resource, regardless of whether
     440   those multiple representations are due to resource state changes over
     441   time, content negotiation resulting in multiple representations being
     442   valid at the same time, or both. An entity-tag consists of an opaque
     443   quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
     444</t>
     445<figure><artwork type="abnf2616"><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="ETag"/><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="entity-tag"/><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="weak"/><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="opaque-tag"/>
     446  <x:ref>ETag</x:ref>       = <x:ref>entity-tag</x:ref>
     447
    384448  <x:ref>entity-tag</x:ref> = [ <x:ref>weak</x:ref> ] <x:ref>opaque-tag</x:ref>
    385449  <x:ref>weak</x:ref>       = <x:abnf-char-sequence>"W/"</x:abnf-char-sequence> ; "W/", case-sensitive
    … …  
    387451</artwork></figure>
    388452<t>
    389    A "strong entity-tag" &MAY; be shared by two representations of a resource
    390    only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
    391 </t>
    392 <t>
    393    A "weak entity-tag", indicated by the "W/" prefix, &MAY; be shared by
    394    two representations of a resource. A weak entity-tag can only be used
    395    for weak comparison.
    396 </t>
    397 <t>
    398    Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless
    399    of expiration times, so it is inappropriate to expect that a cache will
    400    never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it
    401    obtained at some point in the past.
    402    A strong entity-tag &MUST; be unique across all versions of all
    403    representations associated with a particular resource over time.
    404    However, there is no implication of uniqueness across entity-tags
    405    of different resources (i.e., the same entity-tag value might be
    406    in use for representations of multiple resources at the same time
    407    and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
    408 </t>
    409 
    410 <section title="ETag" anchor="header.etag">
    411   <iref primary="true" item="ETag header field" x:for-anchor=""/>
    412   <iref primary="true" item="Header Fields" subitem="ETag" x:for-anchor=""/>
    413   <x:anchor-alias value="ETag"/>
    414 <t>
    415    The "ETag" header field provides the current value of the
    416    entity-tag (see <xref target="entity.tags"/>) for one representation of
    417    the target resource.  An entity-tag
    418    is intended for use as a resource-local identifier for differentiating
    419    between representations of the same resource that vary over time or via
    420    content negotiation (see <xref target="weak.and.strong.validators"/>).
    421 </t>
    422 <figure><artwork type="abnf2616"><iref primary="true" item="Grammar" subitem="ETag"/>
    423   <x:ref>ETag</x:ref> = <x:ref>entity-tag</x:ref>
    424 </artwork></figure>
     453   An entity-tag can be more reliable for validation than a modification
     454   date in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification
     455   dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not
     456   sufficient, or where modification dates are not consistently maintained.
     457</t>
    425458<figure><preamble>
    426459  Examples:
    … …  
    431464  ETag: ""
    432465</artwork></figure>
    433 <t>
    434    An entity-tag provides an "opaque" cache validator that allows for
    435    more reliable validation than modification dates in situations where
    436    it is inconvenient to store modification dates,
    437    where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not
    438    sufficient, or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain
    439    paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification dates.
    440 </t>
     466
     467<section title="Generation" anchor="entity.tag.generation">
    441468<t>
    442469   The principle behind entity-tags is that only the service author
    443    knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an
    444    appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any
    445    validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality would
    446    open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other header fields
    447    (except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0) are never
    448    used for purposes of validating a cache entry.
    449 </t>
    450 </section>
    451 
    452 <section title="Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources" anchor="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">
    453 <t>
    454    Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (&content-negotiation;),
    455    and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on
    456    the Accept-Encoding request header field (&header-accept-encoding;):
    457 </t>
    458 <figure><preamble>>> Request:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;request&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
    459 GET /index HTTP/1.1
    460 Host: www.example.com
    461 Accept-Encoding: gzip
    462 
    463 </artwork></figure>
    464 <t>
    465    In this case, the response might or might not use the gzip content coding.
    466    If it does not, the response might look like:
    467 </t>
    468 <figure><preamble>>> Response:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;response&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
    469 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    470 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    471 ETag: "123-a"
    472 Content-Length: <x:length-of target="exbody"/>
    473 Vary: Accept-Encoding
    474 Content-Type: text/plain
    475 
    476 <x:span anchor="exbody">Hello World!
    477 Hello World!
    478 Hello World!
    479 Hello World!
    480 Hello World!
    481 </x:span></artwork></figure>
    482 <t>
    483    An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:
    484 </t>
    485 <figure><preamble>>> Response:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;response&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
    486 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    487 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    488 ETag: "123-b"
    489 Content-Length: 43
    490 Vary: Accept-Encoding
    491 Content-Type: text/plain
    492 Content-Encoding: gzip
    493 
    494 <spanx>...binary data...</spanx></artwork></figure>
    495 <x:note>
    496   <t>
    497     <x:h>Note:</x:h> Content codings are a property of the representation,
    498     so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation must be distinct
    499     from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates
    500     and range requests.  In contrast, transfer codings (&transfer-codings;)
    501     apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
    502   </t>
    503 </x:note>
    504 </section>
    505 </section>
    506 
    507 <section title="Weak and Strong Validators" anchor="weak.and.strong.validators">
     470   knows the implementation of a resource well enough to select the
     471   most accurate and efficient validation mechanism for that resource,
     472   and that any such mechanism can be mapped to a simple sequence of
     473   octets for easy comparison.  Since the value is opaque, there is no
     474   need for the client to be aware of how each entity-tag is constructed.
     475</t>
     476<t>
     477   For example, a resource that has implementation-specific versioning
     478   applied to all changes might use an internal revision number, perhaps
     479   combined with a variance identifier for content negotiation, to
     480   accurately differentiate between representations.
     481   Other implementations might use a stored hash of representation content,
     482   a combination of various filesystem attributes, or a modification
     483   timestamp that has sub-second resolution.
     484</t>
     485<t>
     486   Origin servers &SHOULD; send ETag for any selected representation
     487   for which detection of changes can be reasonably and consistently
     488   determined, since the entity-tag's use in conditional requests and
     489   evaluating cache freshness (&caching;) can result in a substantial
     490   reduction of HTTP network traffic and can be a significant factor in
     491   improving service scalability and reliability.
     492</t>
     493</section>
     494
     495<section title="Weak versus Strong" anchor="weak.and.strong.validators">
    508496<t>
    509497   Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to
    510    decide if they represent the same or different representations, one
     498   decide if they indicate the same or different representations, one
    511499   normally would expect that if the representation (including both
    512500   representation header fields and representation body) changes in any
    513501   way, then the associated validator would change as well. If this is
    514    true, then we call this validator a "strong validator".  One example
     502   true, then we call that validator a "strong validator".  One example
    515503   of a strong validator is an integer that is incremented in stable
    516504   storage every time a representation is changed.
    … …  
    529517</t>
    530518<t>
     519   One can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a
     520   specific representation, whereas a weak validator is part of an
     521   identifier for a set of equivalent representations (where this notion
     522   of equivalence is entirely governed by the origin server and beyond
     523   the scope of this specification).
     524</t>
     525<t>
    531526   An entity-tag is normally a strong validator, but the protocol
    532    provides a mechanism to tag an entity-tag as "weak". One can think
    533    of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific
    534    representation, whereas a weak validator is part of an identifier
    535    for a set of equivalent representations (where this notion of
    536    equivalence is entirely governed by the origin server and beyond
    537    the scope of this specification).
     527   provides a mechanism to tag an entity-tag as "weak".
    538528  <list><t>
    539529      A representation's modification time, if defined with only one-second
    … …  
    556546</t>
    557547<t>
    558    A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request
    559    and includes the validator in a validating header field, or when a
    560    server compares two validators.
    561 </t>
    562 <t>
    563    Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only
    564    usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of a representation.
    565    For example, either kind is usable for a normal conditional GET.
    566    However, only a strong validator is usable for range retrieval
    567    (<xref target="Part5"/>), since otherwise the client might end up
    568    with an internally inconsistent representation.
    569    Clients &MUST-NOT; use weak validators in range requests.
    570 </t>
    571 <t>
    572    The only function that HTTP/1.1 defines on validators is
    573    comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending
     548   A "strong entity-tag" &MAY; be shared by two representations of a resource
     549   only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
     550</t>
     551<t>
     552   A "weak entity-tag", indicated by the "W/" prefix, &MAY; be shared by
     553   two representations of a resource. A weak entity-tag can only be used
     554   for weak comparison.
     555</t>
     556<t>
     557   Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless
     558   of expiration times.  Thus, a cache might attempt to validate an
     559   entry using a validator that it obtained in the distant past.
     560   A strong entity-tag &MUST; be unique across all versions of all
     561   representations associated with a particular resource over time.
     562   However, there is no implication of uniqueness across entity-tags
     563   of different resources (i.e., the same entity-tag value might be
     564   in use for representations of multiple resources at the same time
     565   and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
     566</t>
     567</section>
     568
     569<section title="Comparison" anchor="entity.tag.comparison">
     570  <x:anchor-alias value="validator.comparison"/>
     571<t>
     572   There are two entity-tag comparison functions, depending
    574573   on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators
    575574   or not:
    … …  
    585584</t>
    586585<t>
     586   A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request
     587   and includes the validator in a precondition, or when a server
     588   compares two validators.
     589</t>
     590<t>
     591   Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only
     592   usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of a representation.
     593   For example, either kind is usable for a normal conditional GET.
     594</t>
     595<t>
    587596   The example below shows the results for a set of entity-tag pairs,
    588597   and both the weak and strong comparison function results:
    … …  
    616625<t>
    617626   An entity-tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak.
    618    <xref target="entity.tags"/> gives the syntax for entity-tags.
    619 </t>
    620 <t>
    621    A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is
    622    implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is strong,
    623    using the following rules:
    624   <list style="symbols">
    625      <t>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the
    626         actual current validator for the representation and,</t>
    627      <t>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did
    628         not change twice during the second covered by the presented
    629         validator.</t>
    630   </list>
    631 </t>
    632 <t>
    633    or
    634   <list style="symbols">
    635      <t>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since
    636         or If-Unmodified-Since header field, because the client
    637         has a cache entry for the associated representation, and</t>
    638      <t>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
    639         when the origin server sent the original response, and</t>
    640      <t>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
    641         the Date value.</t>
    642   </list>
    643 </t>
    644 <t>
    645    or
    646   <list style="symbols">
    647      <t>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the
    648         validator stored in its cache entry for the representation, and</t>
    649      <t>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time
    650         when the origin server sent the original response, and</t>
    651      <t>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before
    652         the Date value.</t>
    653   </list>
    654 </t>
    655 <t>
    656    This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were
    657    sent by the origin server during the same second, but both had the
    658    same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would
    659    have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-second
    660    limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified
    661    values are generated from different clocks, or at somewhat
    662    different times during the preparation of the response. An
    663    implementation &MAY; use a value larger than 60 seconds, if it is
    664    believed that 60 seconds is too short.
    665 </t>
    666 <t>
    667    If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for
    668    which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator, it
    669    &MAY; do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense
    670    described here.
    671 </t>
    672 <t>
    673    A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request
    674    (<xref target="Part5"/>) &MUST; use the strong comparison function to
    675    evaluate the condition.
    676 </t>
    677 <t>
    678    These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range
    679    retrievals on values that have been obtained from HTTP/1.0
    680    servers.
    681627</t>
    682628</section>
    … …  
    760706</section>
    761707
     708<section title="Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources" anchor="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">
     709<t>
     710   Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (&content-negotiation;),
     711   and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on
     712   the Accept-Encoding request header field (&header-accept-encoding;):
     713</t>
     714<figure><preamble>>> Request:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;request&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
     715GET /index HTTP/1.1
     716Host: www.example.com
     717Accept-Encoding: gzip
     718
     719</artwork></figure>
     720<t>
     721   In this case, the response might or might not use the gzip content coding.
     722   If it does not, the response might look like:
     723</t>
     724<figure><preamble>>> Response:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;response&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
     725HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     726Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
     727ETag: "123-a"
     728Content-Length: <x:length-of target="exbody"/>
     729Vary: Accept-Encoding
     730Content-Type: text/plain
     731
     732<x:span anchor="exbody">Hello World!
     733Hello World!
     734Hello World!
     735Hello World!
     736Hello World!
     737</x:span></artwork></figure>
     738<t>
     739   An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:
     740</t>
     741<figure><preamble>>> Response:</preamble><artwork type="message/http; msgtype=&#34;response&#34;"  x:indent-with="  ">
     742HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     743Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
     744ETag: "123-b"
     745Content-Length: 43
     746Vary: Accept-Encoding
     747Content-Type: text/plain
     748Content-Encoding: gzip
     749
     750<spanx>...binary data...</spanx></artwork></figure>
     751<x:note>
     752  <t>
     753    <x:h>Note:</x:h> Content codings are a property of the representation,
     754    so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation must be distinct
     755    from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates
     756    and range requests.  In contrast, transfer codings (&transfer-codings;)
     757    apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
     758  </t>
     759</x:note>
     760</section>
     761</section>
    762762</section>
    763763
    … …  
    10061006   field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header
    10071007   fields is undefined by this specification.
     1008</t>
     1009</section>
     1010
     1011<section title="If-Range" anchor="header.if-range">
     1012<t>
     1013   The If-Range header field provides a special conditional request
     1014   mechanism that is similar to If-Match and If-Unmodified-Since but
     1015   specific to HTTP range requests. If-Range is defined in &header-if-range;.
    10081016</t>
    10091017</section>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.html

    r1258 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    406406      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    407407      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-latest">
    408       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     408      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    409409      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    410410      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 5 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 5 defines range-specific requests and the rules for constructing and combining responses to those requests.">
    … …  
    432432            </tr>
    433433            <tr>
    434                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     434               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    435435               <td class="right">J. Mogul</td>
    436436            </tr>
    … …  
    489489            <tr>
    490490               <td class="left"></td>
    491                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     491               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    492492            </tr>
    493493         </tbody>
    … …  
    515515         in progress”.
    516516      </p>
    517       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     517      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    518518      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    519519      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
    … …  
    642642      <p id="rfc.section.1.2.2.p.1">The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
    643643      <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>  = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#date.time.formats.full.date" title="Date/Time Formats: Full Date">Section 6.1</a>&gt;
    644 </pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = &lt;entity-tag, defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>, <a href="p4-conditional.html#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
     644</pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = &lt;entity-tag, defined in <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>, <a href="p4-conditional.html#header.etag" title="ETag">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
    645645</pre><h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="range.units" href="#range.units">Range Units</a></h1>
    646       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range of) the representation be included within the response. HTTP/1.1
     646      <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range) of the representation be included within the response. HTTP/1.1
    647647         uses range units in the Range (<a href="#header.range" id="rfc.xref.header.range.1" title="Range">Section&nbsp;5.4</a>) and Content-Range (<a href="#header.content-range" id="rfc.xref.header.content-range.1" title="Content-Range">Section&nbsp;5.2</a>) header fields. A representation can be broken down into subranges according to various structural units.
    648648      </p>
    … …  
    656656      </p>
    657657      <h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="range.specifier.registry" href="#range.specifier.registry">Range Specifier Registry</a></h2>
    658       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">The HTTP Ranger Specifier Registry defines the name space for the range specifier names.</p>
     658      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">The HTTP Range Specifier Registry defines the name space for the range specifier names.</p>
    659659      <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.2">Registrations <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following fields:
    660660      </p>
    … …  
    712712      <ul>
    713713         <li>Both the incoming response and the cache entry have a cache validator.</li>
    714          <li>The two cache validators match using the strong comparison function (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section 2.3</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
     714         <li>The two cache validators match using the strong comparison function (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">Section 2.2.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
    715715         </li>
    716716      </ul>
    … …  
    827827      </p>
    828828      <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.11"></span>  <a href="#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> = <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> / <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    829 </pre><p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.4">If the client has no entity-tag for a representation, but does have a Last-Modified date, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use that date in an If-Range header field. (The server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of entity-tag
     829</pre><p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.4">Only a strong validator (<a href="p4-conditional.html#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">Section 2.2.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>) is usable for range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent representation. Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in range requests. A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
     830      </p>
     831      <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.5">If the client has no entity-tag for a representation, but does have a Last-Modified date, it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use that date in an If-Range header field. (The server can distinguish between a valid HTTP-date and any form of entity-tag
    830832         by examining no more than two characters.) The If-Range header field <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> only be used together with a Range header field, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored if the request does not include a Range header field, or if the server does not support the sub-range operation.
    831833      </p>
    832       <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.5">If the entity-tag given in the If-Range header field matches the current cache validator for the representation, then the
     834      <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.6">If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator,
     835         it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described in <a href="p4-conditional.html#lastmod.comparison" title="Comparison">Section 2.1.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>.
     836      </p>
     837      <p id="rfc.section.5.3.p.7">If the entity-tag given in the If-Range header field matches the current cache validator for the representation, then the
    833838         server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide the specified sub-range of the representation using a 206 (Partial Content) response. If the cache validator does
    834839         not match, then the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return the entire representation using a 200 (OK) response.
    … …  
    14611466                     </ul>
    14621467                  </li>
    1463                   <li><em>Part4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">1.2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">4</a>, <a href="#Part4"><b>9.1</b></a><ul>
     1468                  <li><em>Part4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">1.2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">4</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">5.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.4">5.3</a>, <a href="#Part4"><b>9.1</b></a><ul>
     1469                        <li><em>Section 2.1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.4">5.3</a></li>
    14641470                        <li><em>Section 2.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">1.2.2</a></li>
    1465                         <li><em>Section 2.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">4</a></li>
     1471                        <li><em>Section 2.2.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">4</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">5.3</a></li>
    14661472                     </ul>
    14671473                  </li>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p5-range.xml

    r1258 r1260  
    2020  <!ENTITY full-date                  "<xref target='Part1' x:rel='#date.time.formats.full.date' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    2121  <!ENTITY messaging                  "<xref target='Part1' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    22   <!ENTITY entity-tags                "<xref target='Part4' x:rel='#entity.tags' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
     22  <!ENTITY entity-tags                "<xref target='Part4' x:rel='#header.etag' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    2323  <!ENTITY weak-and-strong-validators "<xref target='Part4' x:rel='#weak.and.strong.validators' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
     24  <!ENTITY lastmod-comparison         "<xref target='Part4' x:rel='#lastmod.comparison' xmlns:x='http://purl.org/net/xml2rfc/ext'/>">
    2425]>
    2526<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
    … …  
    313314  <x:anchor-alias value="range-unit"/>
    314315<t>
    315    HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range of) the
     316   HTTP/1.1 allows a client to request that only part (a range) of the
    316317   representation be included within the response. HTTP/1.1 uses range
    317318   units in the Range (<xref target="header.range"/>) and Content-Range (<xref target="header.content-range"/>)
    … …  
    339340<section title="Range Specifier Registry" anchor="range.specifier.registry">
    340341<t>
    341    The HTTP Ranger Specifier Registry defines the name space for the range
     342   The HTTP Range Specifier Registry defines the name space for the range
    342343   specifier names.
    343344</t>
    … …  
    678679</artwork></figure>
    679680<t>
     681   Only a strong validator (&weak-and-strong-validators;) is usable for
     682   range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an
     683   internally inconsistent representation.
     684   Clients &MUST-NOT; use weak validators in range requests.
     685   A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request
     686   &MUST; use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
     687</t>
     688<t>
    680689   If the client has no entity-tag for a representation, but does have a Last-Modified
    681690   date, it &MAY; use that date in an If-Range header field. (The
    … …  
    685694   ignored if the request does not include a Range header field, or if the
    686695   server does not support the sub-range operation.
     696</t>
     697<t>
     698   If a client wishes to perform a sub-range retrieval on a value for
     699   which it has only a Last-Modified time and no opaque validator, it
     700   &MAY; do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense
     701   described in &lastmod-comparison;.
    687702</t>
    688703<t>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p6-cache.html

    r1258 r1260  
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-center {
    364        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     364       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    365365  }
    366366  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    408408      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    409409      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-latest">
    410       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     410      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    411411      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    412412      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document is Part 6 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 6 defines requirements on HTTP caches and the associated header fields that control cache behavior or indicate cacheable response messages.">
    … …  
    434434            </tr>
    435435            <tr>
    436                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     436               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    437437               <td class="right">J. Mogul</td>
    438438            </tr>
    … …  
    495495            <tr>
    496496               <td class="left"></td>
    497                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     497               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    498498            </tr>
    499499         </tbody>
    … …  
    521521         in progress”.
    522522      </p>
    523       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     523      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    524524      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    525525      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
    … …  
    10211021      <p id="rfc.section.2.8.p.2">If the new response contains an ETag, it identifies the stored response to use. <span class="comment" id="TODO-mention-CL">[<a href="#TODO-mention-CL" class="smpl">TODO-mention-CL</a>: might need language about Content-Location here]</span><span class="comment" id="TODO-select-for-combine">[<a href="#TODO-select-for-combine" class="smpl">TODO-select-for-combine</a>: Shouldn't this be the selected response?]</span>
    10221022      </p>
    1023       <p id="rfc.section.2.8.p.3">When the new response's status code is 206 (partial content), a cache <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> combine it with the old response if either response does not have a validator, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> combine it with the old response when those validators do not match with the strong comparison function (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section 2.3</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
     1023      <p id="rfc.section.2.8.p.3">When the new response's status code is 206 (partial content), a cache <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> combine it with the old response if either response does not have a validator, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> combine it with the old response when those validators do not match with the strong comparison function (see <a href="p4-conditional.html#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">Section 2.2.2</a> of <a href="#Part4" id="rfc.xref.Part4.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests">[Part4]</cite></a>).
    10241024      </p>
    10251025      <p id="rfc.section.2.8.p.4">The stored response header fields are used as those of the updated response, except that </p>
    … …  
    20942094                  <li><em>Part4</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">2.3.1.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.2">2.4</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">2.8</a>, <a href="#Part4"><b>8.1</b></a><ul>
    20952095                        <li><em>Section 2.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.1">2.3.1.1</a></li>
    2096                         <li><em>Section 2.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">2.8</a></li>
     2096                        <li><em>Section 2.2.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.Part4.3">2.8</a></li>
    20972097                     </ul>
    20982098                  </li>

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p7-auth.html

    r1258 r1260  
    359359  }
    360360  @bottom-center {
    361        content: "Expires October 6, 2011";
     361       content: "Expires October 7, 2011";
    362362  }
    363363  @bottom-right {
    … …  
    404404      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    405405      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-latest">
    406       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-04">
     406      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-04-05">
    407407      <meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616">
    408408      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as &#34;HTTP/1.1&#34; and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines HTTP Authentication.">
    … …  
    435435            </tr>
    436436            <tr>
    437                <td class="left">Expires: October 6, 2011</td>
     437               <td class="left">Expires: October 7, 2011</td>
    438438               <td class="right">HP</td>
    439439            </tr>
    … …  
    488488            <tr>
    489489               <td class="left"></td>
    490                <td class="right">April 4, 2011</td>
     490               <td class="right">April 5, 2011</td>
    491491            </tr>
    492492         </tbody>
    … …  
    514514         in progress”.
    515515      </p>
    516       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 6, 2011.</p>
     516      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on October 7, 2011.</p>
    517517      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    518518      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.