Ignore:
Timestamp:
14/06/14 11:20:37 (7 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

update to latest version of rfc2629.xslt, regen all HTML

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

  • draft-ietf-httpbis/01/p4-conditional.html

    r1099 r2726  
    22  PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
    33<html lang="en">
    4    <head profile="http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hcard http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
     4   <head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
    55      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    66      <title>HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests</title><style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
    … …  
    2424body {
    2525  color: black;
    26   font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
    27   font-size: 10pt;
     26  font-family: cambria, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     27  font-size: 11pt;
     28  margin-right: 2em;
    2829}
    2930cite {
    3031  font-style: normal;
    3132}
    32 dd {
    33   margin-right: 2em;
    34 }
    3533dl {
    3634  margin-left: 2em;
    3735}
    38 
    3936ul.empty {
    4037  list-style-type: none;
    … …  
    5047}
    5148h1 {
    52   font-size: 14pt;
     49  font-size: 130%;
    5350  line-height: 21pt;
    5451  page-break-after: avoid;
    … …  
    5754  page-break-before: always;
    5855}
    59 h1 a {
    60   color: #333333;
    61 }
    6256h2 {
    63   font-size: 12pt;
     57  font-size: 120%;
    6458  line-height: 15pt;
    6559  page-break-after: avoid;
    6660}
    67 h3, h4, h5, h6 {
    68   font-size: 10pt;
     61h3 {
     62  font-size: 110%;
    6963  page-break-after: avoid;
    7064}
    71 h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
     65h4, h5, h6 {
     66  page-break-after: avoid;
     67}
     68h1 a, h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
    7269  color: black;
    7370}
    … …  
    7774li {
    7875  margin-left: 2em;
    79   margin-right: 2em;
    8076}
    8177ol {
    8278  margin-left: 2em;
    83   margin-right: 2em;
     79}
     80ol.la {
     81  list-style-type: lower-alpha;
     82}
     83ol.ua {
     84  list-style-type: upper-alpha;
    8485}
    8586ol p {
    … …  
    8889p {
    8990  margin-left: 2em;
    90   margin-right: 2em;
    9191}
    9292pre {
    … …  
    9494  background-color: lightyellow;
    9595  padding: .25em;
     96  page-break-inside: avoid;
    9697}
    9798pre.text2 {
    … …  
    123124  border-spacing: 1px;
    124125  width: 95%;
    125   font-size: 10pt;
     126  font-size: 11pt;
    126127  color: white;
    127128}
    … …  
    131132td.topnowrap {
    132133  vertical-align: top;
    133   white-space: nowrap; 
     134  white-space: nowrap;
    134135}
    135136table.header td {
    … …  
    151152  list-style: none;
    152153  margin-left: 1.5em;
    153   margin-right: 0em;
    154154  padding-left: 0em;
    155155}
    … …  
    157157  line-height: 150%;
    158158  font-weight: bold;
    159   font-size: 10pt;
    160159  margin-left: 0em;
    161   margin-right: 0em;
    162160}
    163161ul.toc li li {
    164162  line-height: normal;
    165163  font-weight: normal;
    166   font-size: 9pt;
     164  font-size: 10pt;
    167165  margin-left: 0em;
    168   margin-right: 0em;
    169166}
    170167li.excluded {
    … …  
    173170ul p {
    174171  margin-left: 0em;
     172}
     173.title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 {
     174  font-family: candara, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     175}
     176samp, tt, code, pre {
     177  font: consolas, monospace;
    175178}
    176179ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
    177180  list-style: none;
    178181  margin-left: 1.5em;
    179   margin-right: 0em;
    180182  padding-left: 0em;
    181183  page-break-before: avoid;
    … …  
    185187  line-height: 200%;
    186188  margin-left: 0em;
    187   margin-right: 0em;
    188189}
    189190ul.ind li li {
    … …  
    191192  line-height: 150%;
    192193  margin-left: 0em;
    193   margin-right: 0em;
    194194}
    195195.avoidbreak {
    … …  
    215215  font-weight: bold;
    216216  text-align: center;
    217   font-size: 9pt;
     217  font-size: 10pt;
    218218}
    219219.filename {
    220220  color: #333333;
     221  font-size: 75%;
    221222  font-weight: bold;
    222   font-size: 12pt;
    223223  line-height: 21pt;
    224224  text-align: center;
    … …  
    227227  font-weight: bold;
    228228}
    229 .hidden {
    230   display: none;
    231 }
    232229.left {
    233230  text-align: left;
    … …  
    237234}
    238235.title {
    239   color: #990000;
    240   font-size: 18pt;
     236  color: green;
     237  font-size: 150%;
    241238  line-height: 18pt;
    242239  font-weight: bold;
    … …  
    244241  margin-top: 36pt;
    245242}
    246 .vcardline {
    247   display: block;
    248 }
    249243.warning {
    250   font-size: 14pt;
     244  font-size: 130%;
    251245  background-color: yellow;
    252246}
    … …  
    257251    display: none;
    258252  }
    259  
     253
    260254  a {
    261255    color: black;
    … …  
    272266    background-color: white;
    273267    vertical-align: top;
    274     font-size: 12pt;
     268    font-size: 110%;
    275269  }
    276270
    277   ul.toc a::after {
     271  ul.toc a:nth-child(2)::after {
    278272    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
    279273  }
    280  
     274
    281275  ul.ind li li a {
    282276    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
    283277  }
    284  
     278
    285279  .print2col {
    286280    column-count: 2;
    … …  
    292286@page {
    293287  @top-left {
    294        content: "Internet-Draft"; 
    295   } 
     288       content: "Internet-Draft";
     289  }
    296290  @top-right {
    297        content: "January 2008"; 
    298   } 
     291       content: "January 2008";
     292  }
    299293  @top-center {
    300        content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 4"; 
    301   } 
     294       content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 4";
     295  }
    302296  @bottom-left {
    303        content: "Fielding, et al."; 
    304   } 
     297       content: "Fielding, et al.";
     298  }
    305299  @bottom-center {
    306        content: "Standards Track";
    307   } 
     300       content: "Expires July 15, 2008";
     301  }
    308302  @bottom-right {
    309        content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 
    310   } 
     303       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
     304  }
    311305}
    312306
    313 @page:first { 
     307@page:first {
    314308    @top-left {
    315309      content: normal;
    … …  
    338332      <link rel="Appendix" title="A Compatibility with Previous Versions" href="#rfc.section.A">
    339333      <link rel="Appendix" title="B Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.B">
    340       <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.537, 2010-12-30 14:21:59, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
     334      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.640, 2014/06/13 12:42:58, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
    341335      <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
    342336      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R.">
    … …  
    367361            </tr>
    368362            <tr>
    369                <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
     363               <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    370364               </td>
    371365               <td class="right">J. Gettys</td>
    … …  
    438432      </table>
    439433      <p class="title">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01</span></p>
    440       <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
    441       <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
    442          is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
    443          6 of BCP 79.
    444       </p>
    445       <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
    446          that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
    447       </p>
    448       <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
    449          documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
    450          in progress”.
    451       </p>
    452       <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.
    453       </p>
    454       <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.
    455       </p>
    456       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2008.</p>
    457       <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
     434      <div id="rfc.status">
     435         <h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
     436         <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
     437            is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
     438            6 of BCP 79.
     439         </p>
     440         <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
     441            that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
     442         </p>
     443         <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     444            documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
     445            in progress”.
     446         </p>
     447         <p>The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt">http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.
     448         </p>
     449         <p>The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html">http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.
     450         </p>
     451         <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2008.</p>
     452      </div>
     453      <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
    458454      <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
    459455         systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 4 of the
    460456         seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part
    461457         4 defines request header fields for indicating conditional requests and the rules for constructing responses to those requests.
    462       </p> 
    463       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
     458      </p>
     459      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>
    464460      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues
    465461         list is at &lt;<a href="http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11">http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11</a>&gt; and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at &lt;<a href="http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>&gt;.
    466       </p> 
     462      </p>
    467463      <p>This draft incorporates those issue resolutions that were either collected in the original RFC2616 errata list (&lt;<a href="http://purl.org/NET/http-errata">http://purl.org/NET/http-errata</a>&gt;), or which were agreed upon on the mailing list between October 2006 and November 2007 (as published in "draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03").
    468       </p> 
     464      </p>
    469465      <hr class="noprint">
    470466      <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
    471467      <ul class="toc">
    472          <li>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
    473                <li>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
     468         <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
     469               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
    474470            </ul>
    475471         </li>
    476          <li>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></li>
    477          <li>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.3">Status Code Definitions</a><ul>
    478                <li>3.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li>
    479                <li>3.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li>
     472         <li><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></li>
     473         <li><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.3">Status Code Definitions</a><ul>
     474               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li>
     475               <li><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li>
    480476            </ul>
    481477         </li>
    482          <li>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></li>
    483          <li>5.&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>
    484          <li>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
    485                <li>6.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></li>
    486                <li>6.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></li>
    487                <li>6.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></li>
    488                <li>6.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></li>
    489                <li>6.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></li>
    490                <li>6.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></li>
     478         <li><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></li>
     479         <li><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&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>
     480         <li><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
     481               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></li>
     482               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></li>
     483               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></li>
     484               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></li>
     485               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></li>
     486               <li><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></li>
    491487            </ul>
    492488         </li>
    493          <li>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></li>
    494          <li>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></li>
    495          <li>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
    496          <li>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
    497                <li>10.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
    498                <li>10.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
     489         <li><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></li>
     490         <li><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></li>
     491         <li><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
     492         <li><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
     493               <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
     494               <li><a href="#rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
    499495            </ul>
    500496         </li>
    501          <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    502          <li>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
    503                <li>A.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
     497         <li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
     498               <li><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
    504499            </ul>
    505500         </li>
    506          <li>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
    507                <li>B.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
    508                <li>B.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00</a></li>
     501         <li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
     502               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
     503               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00</a></li>
    509504            </ul>
    510505         </li>
    511506         <li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li>
     507         <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    512508         <li><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements</a></li>
    513509      </ul>
    514       <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
    515       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 response metadata for indicating potential changes to payload content, including modification
    516          time stamps and opaque entity-tags, and the HTTP conditional request mechanisms that allow preconditions to be placed on a
    517          request method. Conditional GET requests allow for efficient cache updates. Other conditional request methods are used to
    518          protect against overwriting or misunderstanding the state of a resource that has been changed unbeknownst to the requesting
    519          client.
    520       </p>
    521       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller
    522          errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
    523          resource metadata will be discussed first and then followed by each conditional request-header, concluding with a definition
    524          of precedence and the expectation of ordering strong validator checks before weak validator checks. It is likely that more
    525          content from <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a> will migrate to this part, where appropriate. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed these topics and associated requirements
    526          had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
    527       </p>
    528       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="intro.requirements" href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
    529       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
    530          in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
    531       </p>
    532       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
    533       </p>
    534       <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tags" href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></h1>
    535       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">Entity tags are used for comparing two or more entities from the same requested resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity tags in the
    536          ETag (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>), If-Match (<a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>), If-None-Match (<a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;6.4</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;4</a>. An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
    537       </p>
    538       <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span>  entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag
     510      <div id="introduction">
     511         <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
     512         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 response metadata for indicating potential changes to payload content, including modification
     513            time stamps and opaque entity-tags, and the HTTP conditional request mechanisms that allow preconditions to be placed on a
     514            request method. Conditional GET requests allow for efficient cache updates. Other conditional request methods are used to
     515            protect against overwriting or misunderstanding the state of a resource that has been changed unbeknownst to the requesting
     516            client.
     517         </p>
     518         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">This document is currently disorganized in order to minimize the changes between drafts and enable reviewers to see the smaller
     519            errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
     520            resource metadata will be discussed first and then followed by each conditional request-header, concluding with a definition
     521            of precedence and the expectation of ordering strong validator checks before weak validator checks. It is likely that more
     522            content from <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a> will migrate to this part, where appropriate. The current mess reflects how widely dispersed these topics and associated requirements
     523            had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
     524         </p>
     525         <div id="intro.requirements">
     526            <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
     527            <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1">The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
     528               in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
     529            </p>
     530            <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
     531            </p>
     532         </div>
     533      </div>
     534      <div id="entity.tags">
     535         <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></h1>
     536         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">Entity tags are used for comparing two or more entities from the same requested resource. HTTP/1.1 uses entity tags in the
     537            ETag (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>), If-Match (<a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;6.2</a>), If-None-Match (<a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;6.4</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;4</a>. An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
     538         </p>
     539         <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span>  entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag
    539540  weak       = "W/"
    540541  opaque-tag = quoted-string
    541542</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.p.3">A "strong entity tag" <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two entities of a resource only if they are equivalent by octet equality.
    542       </p>
    543       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">A "weak entity tag," indicated by the "W/" prefix, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two entities of a resource only if the entities are equivalent and could be substituted for each other with no
    544          significant change in semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison.
    545       </p>
    546       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.5">An entity tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all entities associated with a particular resource. A given entity tag value <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used for entities obtained by requests on different URIs. The use of the same entity tag value in conjunction with entities
    547          obtained by requests on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those entities.
    548       </p>
    549       <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;Status Code Definitions
    550       </h1>
    551       <div id="rfc.iref.3"></div>
    552       <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div>
    553       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.304" href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h2>
    554       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">If the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with this status code. The 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> contain a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.
    555       </p>
    556       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following header fields:
    557       </p>
    558       <ul>
    559          <li>Date, unless its omission is required by <a href="p1-messaging.html#clockless.origin.server.operation" title="Clockless Origin Server Operation">Section 8.3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a></li>
    560       </ul>
    561       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without
    562          one (as already specified by <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-14.19">Section 14.19</a>), caches will operate correctly.
    563       </p>
    564       <ul>
    565          <li>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request</li>
    566          <li>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
    567             variant
    568          </li>
    569       </ul>
    570       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>), the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include other entity-headers. Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers.
    571       </p>
    572       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">If a 304 response indicates an entity not currently cached, then the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disregard the response and repeat the request without the conditional.
    573       </p>
    574       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry, the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> update the entry to reflect any new field values given in the response.
    575       </p>
    576       <div id="rfc.iref.4"></div>
    577       <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div>
    578       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.412" href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h2>
    579       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This
    580          response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (header field data) and thus
    581          prevent the requested method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.
    582       </p>
    583       <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a id="weak.and.strong.validators" href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></h1>
    584       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different entities,
    585          one normally would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity-headers) changes in any way, then the associated
    586          validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong validator."
    587       </p>
    588       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only on semantically significant changes, and
    589          not when insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is
    590          a "weak validator."
    591       </p>
    592       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.3">Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can
    593          think of a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity changes, while a weak value changes whenever
    594          the meaning of an entity changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific
    595          entity, while a weak validator is part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities.
    596       </p>
    597       <ul class="empty">
    598          <li> <b>Note:</b> One example of a strong validator is an integer that is incremented in stable storage every time an entity is changed.
    599          </li>
    600          <li>An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible
    601             that the resource might be modified twice during a single second.
    602          </li>
    603          <li>Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects;
    604             for example, a hit counter on a site is probably good enough if it is updated every few days or weeks, and any value during
    605             that period is likely "good enough" to be equivalent.
    606          </li>
    607       </ul>
    608       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.4">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a validating header field,
    609          or when a server compares two validators.
    610       </p>
    611       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.5">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
    612          of an entity. For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full entity. However, only a strong validator
    613          is usable for a sub-range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent entity.
    614       </p>
    615       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.6">Clients <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> issue simple (non-subrange) GET requests with either weak validators or strong validators. Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in other forms of request.
    616       </p>
    617       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.7">The only function that the HTTP/1.1 protocol defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions,
    618          depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:
    619       </p>
    620       <ul>
    621          <li>The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical in every way, and both <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be weak.
    622          </li>
    623          <li>The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical in every way, but either or both of them <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be tagged as "weak" without affecting the result.
    624          </li>
    625       </ul>
    626       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.8">An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2</a> gives the syntax for entity tags.
    627       </p>
    628       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.9">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
    629          strong, using the following rules:
    630       </p>
    631       <ul>
    632          <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the entity and,</li>
    633          <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated entity did not change twice during the second covered by the presented
    634             validator.
    635          </li>
    636       </ul>
    637       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.10">or </p>
    638       <ul>
    639          <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header, because the client has
    640             a cache entry for the associated entity, and
    641          </li>
    642          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    643          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    644       </ul>
    645       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.11">or </p>
    646       <ul>
    647          <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and</li>
    648          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    649          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    650       </ul>
    651       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.12">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
    652          both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
    653          time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
    654          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.
    655       </p>
    656       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.13">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,
    657          it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here.
    658       </p>
    659       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.14">A cache or origin server receiving a conditional request, other than a full-body GET request, <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
    660       </p>
    661       <p id="rfc.section.4.p.15">These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range retrievals on values that have been obtained from
    662          HTTP/1.0 servers.
    663       </p>
    664       <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</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></h1>
    665       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
    666          ought to be used, and for what purposes.
    667       </p>
    668       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
    669       <ul>
    670          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
    671          </li>
    672          <li><em class="bcp14">MAY</em> send a weak entity tag instead of a strong entity tag, if performance considerations support the use of weak entity tags,
    673             or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag.
    674          </li>
    675          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a Last-Modified value if it is feasible to send one, unless the risk of a breakdown in semantic transparency that could
    676             result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header would lead to serious problems.
    677          </li>
    678       </ul>
    679       <p id="rfc.section.5.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
    680          value.
    681       </p>
    682       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">In order to be legal, a strong entity tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> change whenever the associated entity value changes in any way. A weak entity tag <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change whenever the associated entity changes in a semantically significant way.
    683       </p>
    684       <ul class="empty">
    685          <li> <b>Note:</b> in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an origin server must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag value
    686             for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache entries
    687             might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a
    688             cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past.
    689          </li>
    690       </ul>
    691       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.5">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
    692       <ul>
    693          <li>If an entity tag has been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use that entity tag in any cache-conditional request (using If-Match or If-None-Match).
    694          </li>
    695          <li>If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use that value in non-subrange cache-conditional requests (using If-Modified-Since).
    696          </li>
    697          <li>If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0 origin server, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use that value in subrange cache-conditional requests (using If-Unmodified-Since:). The user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty.
    698          </li>
    699          <li>If both an entity tag and a Last-Modified value have been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use both validators in cache-conditional requests. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately.
    700          </li>
    701       </ul>
    702       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.6">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
    703          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
    704          field) as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a response status of 304 (Not Modified) unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in
    705          the request.
    706       </p>
    707       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.7">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity
    708          tags 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
    709          fields in the request.
    710       </p>
    711       <ul class="empty">
    712          <li> <b>Note:</b> The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1 servers and clients should transmit as much non-redundant information
    713             as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
    714             assumptions about the validators they receive.
    715          </li>
    716          <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
    717             support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare
    718             cases where the use of a Last-Modified value as a validator by an HTTP/1.0 system could result in a serious problem, then
    719             HTTP/1.1 origin servers should not provide one.
    720          </li>
    721       </ul>
    722       <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
    723       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to conditional requests.</p>
    724       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
    725          receives the entity.
    726       </p>
    727       <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
    728       <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
    729       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
    730       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The ETag response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant. The headers used with
    731          entity tags are described in Sections <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.2" title="If-Match">6.2</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">6.4</a> of this document, and 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>. The entity tag <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used for comparison with other entities from the same resource (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>).
    732       </p>
    733       <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  ETag = "ETag" ":" entity-tag
     543         </p>
     544         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.4">A "weak entity tag," indicated by the "W/" prefix, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be shared by two entities of a resource only if the entities are equivalent and could be substituted for each other with no
     545            significant change in semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison.
     546         </p>
     547         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.5">An entity tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all entities associated with a particular resource. A given entity tag value <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used for entities obtained by requests on different URIs. The use of the same entity tag value in conjunction with entities
     548            obtained by requests on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those entities.
     549         </p>
     550      </div>
     551      <div>
     552         <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;Status Code Definitions
     553         </h1>
     554         <div id="status.304">
     555            <div id="rfc.iref.3.1"></div>
     556            <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div>
     557            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h2>
     558            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">If the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with this status code. The 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> contain a message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line after the header fields.
     559            </p>
     560            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following header fields:
     561            </p>
     562            <ul>
     563               <li>Date, unless its omission is required by <a href="p1-messaging.html#clockless.origin.server.operation" title="Clockless Origin Server Operation">Section 8.3.1</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a></li>
     564            </ul>
     565            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.3">If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without
     566               one (as already specified by <a href="#RFC2068" id="rfc.xref.RFC2068.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2068]</cite></a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-14.19">Section 14.19</a>), caches will operate correctly.
     567            </p>
     568            <ul>
     569               <li>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request</li>
     570               <li>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
     571                  variant
     572               </li>
     573            </ul>
     574            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">If the conditional GET used a strong cache validator (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>), the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include other entity-headers. Otherwise (i.e., the conditional GET used a weak validator), the response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> include other entity-headers; this prevents inconsistencies between cached entity-bodies and updated headers.
     575            </p>
     576            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">If a 304 response indicates an entity not currently cached, then the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disregard the response and repeat the request without the conditional.
     577            </p>
     578            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">If a cache uses a received 304 response to update a cache entry, the cache <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> update the entry to reflect any new field values given in the response.
     579            </p>
     580         </div>
     581         <div id="status.412">
     582            <div id="rfc.iref.4.1"></div>
     583            <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div>
     584            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h2>
     585            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This
     586               response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (header field data) and thus
     587               prevent the requested method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.
     588            </p>
     589         </div>
     590      </div>
     591      <div id="weak.and.strong.validators">
     592         <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></h1>
     593         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different entities,
     594            one normally would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity-headers) changes in any way, then the associated
     595            validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong validator."
     596         </p>
     597         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only on semantically significant changes, and
     598            not when insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is
     599            a "weak validator."
     600         </p>
     601         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.3">Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can
     602            think of a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity changes, while a weak value changes whenever
     603            the meaning of an entity changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific
     604            entity, while a weak validator is part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities.
     605         </p>
     606         <ul class="empty">
     607            <li><b>Note:</b> One example of a strong validator is an integer that is incremented in stable storage every time an entity is changed.
     608            </li>
     609            <li>An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible
     610               that the resource might be modified twice during a single second.
     611            </li>
     612            <li>Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects;
     613               for example, a hit counter on a site is probably good enough if it is updated every few days or weeks, and any value during
     614               that period is likely "good enough" to be equivalent.
     615            </li>
     616         </ul>
     617         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.4">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a validating header field,
     618            or when a server compares two validators.
     619         </p>
     620         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.5">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
     621            of an entity. For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full entity. However, only a strong validator
     622            is usable for a sub-range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent entity.
     623         </p>
     624         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.6">Clients <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> issue simple (non-subrange) GET requests with either weak validators or strong validators. Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in other forms of request.
     625         </p>
     626         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.7">The only function that the HTTP/1.1 protocol defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions,
     627            depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:
     628         </p>
     629         <ul>
     630            <li>The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical in every way, and both <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be weak.
     631            </li>
     632            <li>The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both validators <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical in every way, but either or both of them <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be tagged as "weak" without affecting the result.
     633            </li>
     634         </ul>
     635         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.8">An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2</a> gives the syntax for entity tags.
     636         </p>
     637         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.9">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
     638            strong, using the following rules:
     639         </p>
     640         <ul>
     641            <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the entity and,</li>
     642            <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated entity did not change twice during the second covered by the presented
     643               validator.
     644            </li>
     645         </ul>
     646         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.10">or </p>
     647         <ul>
     648            <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an If-Modified-Since or If-Unmodified-Since header, because the client has
     649               a cache entry for the associated entity, and
     650            </li>
     651            <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     652            <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     653         </ul>
     654         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.11">or </p>
     655         <ul>
     656            <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and</li>
     657            <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     658            <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     659         </ul>
     660         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.12">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
     661            both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
     662            time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
     663            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.
     664         </p>
     665         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.13">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,
     666            it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here.
     667         </p>
     668         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.14">A cache or origin server receiving a conditional request, other than a full-body GET request, <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
     669         </p>
     670         <p id="rfc.section.4.p.15">These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range retrievals on values that have been obtained from
     671            HTTP/1.0 servers.
     672         </p>
     673      </div>
     674      <div id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">
     675         <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&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></h1>
     676         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
     677            ought to be used, and for what purposes.
     678         </p>
     679         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
     680         <ul>
     681            <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
     682            </li>
     683            <li><em class="bcp14">MAY</em> send a weak entity tag instead of a strong entity tag, if performance considerations support the use of weak entity tags,
     684               or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag.
     685            </li>
     686            <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a Last-Modified value if it is feasible to send one, unless the risk of a breakdown in semantic transparency that could
     687               result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header would lead to serious problems.
     688            </li>
     689         </ul>
     690         <p id="rfc.section.5.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
     691            value.
     692         </p>
     693         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">In order to be legal, a strong entity tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> change whenever the associated entity value changes in any way. A weak entity tag <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change whenever the associated entity changes in a semantically significant way.
     694         </p>
     695         <ul class="empty">
     696            <li><b>Note:</b> in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an origin server must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag value
     697               for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache entries
     698               might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a
     699               cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past.
     700            </li>
     701         </ul>
     702         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.5">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
     703         <ul>
     704            <li>If an entity tag has been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use that entity tag in any cache-conditional request (using If-Match or If-None-Match).
     705            </li>
     706            <li>If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use that value in non-subrange cache-conditional requests (using If-Modified-Since).
     707            </li>
     708            <li>If only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0 origin server, <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use that value in subrange cache-conditional requests (using If-Unmodified-Since:). The user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty.
     709            </li>
     710            <li>If both an entity tag and a Last-Modified value have been provided by the origin server, <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use both validators in cache-conditional requests. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately.
     711            </li>
     712         </ul>
     713         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.6">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
     714            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
     715            field) as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a response status of 304 (Not Modified) unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in
     716            the request.
     717         </p>
     718         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.7">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity
     719            tags 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
     720            fields in the request.
     721         </p>
     722         <ul class="empty">
     723            <li><b>Note:</b> The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1 servers and clients should transmit as much non-redundant information
     724               as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
     725               assumptions about the validators they receive.
     726            </li>
     727            <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
     728               support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare
     729               cases where the use of a Last-Modified value as a validator by an HTTP/1.0 system could result in a serious problem, then
     730               HTTP/1.1 origin servers should not provide one.
     731            </li>
     732         </ul>
     733      </div>
     734      <div id="header.fields">
     735         <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
     736         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to conditional requests.</p>
     737         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
     738            receives the entity.
     739         </p>
     740         <div id="header.etag">
     741            <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
     742            <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
     743            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
     744            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The ETag response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant. The headers used with
     745               entity tags are described in Sections <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.2" title="If-Match">6.2</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">6.4</a> of this document, and 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>. The entity tag <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be used for comparison with other entities from the same resource (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>).
     746            </p>
     747            <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  ETag = "ETag" ":" entity-tag
    734748</pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div>
    735       <p>Examples:</p>  <pre class="text">   ETag: "xyzzy"
     749            <p>Examples:</p><pre class="text">   ETag: "xyzzy"
    736750   ETag: W/"xyzzy"
    737751   ETag: ""
    738 </pre><div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
    739       <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
    740       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-match" href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
    741       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The If-Match request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously
    742          obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity
    743          tags in the If-Match header field. Entity tags are defined in <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2</a>. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead.
    744          It is also used, on updating requests, to prevent inadvertent modification of the wrong version of a resource. As a special
    745          case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.
    746       </p>
    747       <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  If-Match = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
     752</pre></div>
     753         <div id="header.if-match">
     754            <div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
     755            <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
     756            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
     757            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The If-Match request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities previously
     758               obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity
     759               tags in the If-Match header field. Entity tags are defined in <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;2</a>. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead.
     760               It is also used, on updating requests, to prevent inadvertent modification of the wrong version of a resource. As a special
     761               case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.
     762            </p>
     763            <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  If-Match = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
    748764</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.3">If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that would have been returned in the response to a similar GET
    749          request (without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
    750          then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-Match header field did not exist.
    751       </p>
    752       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.4">A server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>) to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
    753       </p>
    754       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.5">If none of the entity tags match, or if "*" is given and no current entity exists, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed) response. This behavior is most useful when the client wants to prevent an updating method,
    755          such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved it.
    756       </p>
    757       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.6">If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match
    758          header <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
    759       </p>
    760       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.7">The meaning of "If-Match: *" is that the method <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be performed if the representation selected by the origin server (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see <a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 15.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) exists, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be performed if the representation does not exist.
    761       </p>
    762       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.8">A request intended to update a resource (e.g., a PUT) <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include an If-Match header field to signal that the request method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be applied if the entity corresponding to the If-Match value (a single entity tag) is no longer a representation of that resource.
    763          This allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the request to be successful if the resource has been changed without
    764          their knowledge. Examples:
    765       </p>
    766       <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div><pre class="text">    If-Match: "xyzzy"
     765               request (without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
     766               then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-Match header field did not exist.
     767            </p>
     768            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.4">A server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function (see <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a>) to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
     769            </p>
     770            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.5">If none of the entity tags match, or if "*" is given and no current entity exists, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed) response. This behavior is most useful when the client wants to prevent an updating method,
     771               such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved it.
     772            </p>
     773            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.6">If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status, then the If-Match
     774               header <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
     775            </p>
     776            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.7">The meaning of "If-Match: *" is that the method <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be performed if the representation selected by the origin server (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see <a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 15.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) exists, and <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be performed if the representation does not exist.
     777            </p>
     778            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.8">A request intended to update a resource (e.g., a PUT) <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> include an If-Match header field to signal that the request method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be applied if the entity corresponding to the If-Match value (a single entity tag) is no longer a representation of that resource.
     779               This allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the request to be successful if the resource has been changed without
     780               their knowledge. Examples:
     781            </p>
     782            <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div><pre class="text">    If-Match: "xyzzy"
    767783    If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    768784    If-Match: *
    769785</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.10">The result of a request having both an If-Match header field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since header fields
    770          is undefined by this specification.
    771       </p>
    772       <div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
    773       <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
    774       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-modified-since" href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
    775       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional: if the requested variant has not
    776          been modified since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be returned from the server; instead, a 304 (Not
    777          Modified) response will be returned without any message-body.
    778       </p>
    779       <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
     786               is undefined by this specification.
     787            </p>
     788         </div>
     789         <div id="header.if-modified-since">
     790            <div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
     791            <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
     792            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
     793            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1">The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional: if the requested variant has not
     794               been modified since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be returned from the server; instead, a 304 (Not
     795               Modified) response will be returned without any message-body.
     796            </p>
     797            <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  If-Modified-Since = "If-Modified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
    780798</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    781       <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="text">    If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     799            <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="text">    If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    782800</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header requests that the identified entity be transferred only
    783          if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes
    784          the following cases:
    785       </p>
    786       <ol>
    787          <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a 200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is
    788             invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date which is later than the server's current time is invalid.
    789          </li>
    790          <li>If the variant has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET.</li>
    791          <li>If the variant has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response.
    792          </li>
    793       </ol>
    794       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
    795       <ul class="empty">
    796          <li> <b>Note:</b> The Range request-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.Part5.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
    797          </li>
    798          <li> <b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
    799          </li>
    800          <li> <b>Note:</b> When handling an If-Modified-Since header field, some servers will use an exact date comparison function, rather than a less-than
    801             function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not Modified) response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since
    802             header field for cache validation, clients are advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last-Modified header
    803             field whenever possible.
    804          </li>
    805          <li> <b>Note:</b> If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since header instead of a date taken from the Last-Modified header for
    806             the same request, the client should be aware of the fact that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time.
    807             The client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems due to the different encodings of time between the
    808             client and server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first
    809             requested and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the
    810             If-Modified-Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different
    811             time bases between client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
    812          </li>
    813       </ul>
    814       <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.7">The result of a request having both an If-Modified-Since header field and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since header
    815          fields is undefined by this specification.
    816       </p>
    817       <div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
    818       <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
    819       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.4"><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-none-match" href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
    820       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.1">The If-None-Match request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities
    821          previously obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is current by including a list of their associated
    822          entity tags in the If-None-Match header field. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information
    823          with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT) from inadvertently modifying
    824          an existing resource when the client believes that the resource does not exist.
    825       </p>
    826       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.2">As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.</p>
    827       <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  If-None-Match = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
     801               if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes
     802               the following cases:
     803            </p>
     804            <ol>
     805               <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a 200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is
     806                  invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date which is later than the server's current time is invalid.
     807               </li>
     808               <li>If the variant has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET.</li>
     809               <li>If the variant has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response.
     810               </li>
     811            </ol>
     812            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
     813            <ul class="empty">
     814               <li><b>Note:</b> The Range request-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.Part5.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
     815               </li>
     816               <li><b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
     817               </li>
     818               <li><b>Note:</b> When handling an If-Modified-Since header field, some servers will use an exact date comparison function, rather than a less-than
     819                  function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not Modified) response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since
     820                  header field for cache validation, clients are advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last-Modified header
     821                  field whenever possible.
     822               </li>
     823               <li><b>Note:</b> If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since header instead of a date taken from the Last-Modified header for
     824                  the same request, the client should be aware of the fact that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time.
     825                  The client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems due to the different encodings of time between the
     826                  client and server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first
     827                  requested and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the
     828                  If-Modified-Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different
     829                  time bases between client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
     830               </li>
     831            </ul>
     832            <p id="rfc.section.6.3.p.7">The result of a request having both an If-Modified-Since header field and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since header
     833               fields is undefined by this specification.
     834            </p>
     835         </div>
     836         <div id="header.if-none-match">
     837            <div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
     838            <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
     839            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.4"><a href="#rfc.section.6.4">6.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
     840            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.1">The If-None-Match request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. A client that has one or more entities
     841               previously obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is current by including a list of their associated
     842               entity tags in the If-None-Match header field. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information
     843               with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT) from inadvertently modifying
     844               an existing resource when the client believes that the resource does not exist.
     845            </p>
     846            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.2">As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.</p>
     847            <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  If-None-Match = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#entity-tag )
    828848</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.4">If any of the entity tags match the entity tag of the entity that would have been returned in the response to a similar GET
    829          request (without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
    830          then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method, unless required to do so because the resource's modification date fails to match that supplied
    831          in an If-Modified-Since header field in the request. Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a 304 (Not Modified) response, including the cache-related header fields (particularly ETag) of one of the entities
    832          that matched. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed).
    833       </p>
    834       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.5">See <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a> for rules on how to determine if two entities tags match. The weak comparison function can only be used with GET or HEAD requests.
    835       </p>
    836       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.6">If none of the entity tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-None-Match header field did not exist, but <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> also ignore any If-Modified-Since header field(s) in the request. That is, if no entity tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response.
    837       </p>
    838       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.7">If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status, then the
    839          If-None-Match header <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;5</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
    840       </p>
    841       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.8">The meaning of "If-None-Match: *" is that the method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be performed if the representation selected by the origin server (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see <a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 15.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) exists, and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be performed if the representation does not exist. This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT operations.
    842       </p>
    843       <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.9">Examples:</p>
    844       <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">    If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
     849               request (without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
     850               then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method, unless required to do so because the resource's modification date fails to match that supplied
     851               in an If-Modified-Since header field in the request. Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a 304 (Not Modified) response, including the cache-related header fields (particularly ETag) of one of the entities
     852               that matched. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed).
     853            </p>
     854            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.5">See <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;4</a> for rules on how to determine if two entities tags match. The weak comparison function can only be used with GET or HEAD requests.
     855            </p>
     856            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.6">If none of the entity tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-None-Match header field did not exist, but <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> also ignore any If-Modified-Since header field(s) in the request. That is, if no entity tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a 304 (Not Modified) response.
     857            </p>
     858            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.7">If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx or 304 status, then the
     859               If-None-Match header <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;5</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
     860            </p>
     861            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.8">The meaning of "If-None-Match: *" is that the method <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be performed if the representation selected by the origin server (or by a cache, possibly using the Vary mechanism, see <a href="p6-cache.html#header.vary" title="Vary">Section 15.5</a> of <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) exists, and <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be performed if the representation does not exist. This feature is intended to be useful in preventing races between PUT operations.
     862            </p>
     863            <p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.9">Examples:</p>
     864            <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">    If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
    845865    If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy"
    846866    If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    … …  
    848868    If-None-Match: *
    849869</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.4.p.11">The result of a request having both an If-None-Match header field and either an If-Match or an If-Unmodified-Since header
    850          fields is undefined by this specification.
    851       </p>
    852       <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
    853       <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
    854       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.5"><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-unmodified-since" href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
    855       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. If the requested resource has not
    856          been modified since the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not present.
    857       </p>
    858       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.2">If the requested variant has been modified since the specified time, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed).
    859       </p>
    860       <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  If-Unmodified-Since = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
     870               fields is undefined by this specification.
     871            </p>
     872         </div>
     873         <div id="header.if-unmodified-since">
     874            <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
     875            <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
     876            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.5"><a href="#rfc.section.6.5">6.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
     877            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.1">The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. If the requested resource has not
     878               been modified since the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the requested operation as if the If-Unmodified-Since header were not present.
     879            </p>
     880            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.2">If the requested variant has been modified since the specified time, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation, and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> return a 412 (Precondition Failed).
     881            </p>
     882            <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  If-Unmodified-Since = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" HTTP-date
    861883</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.4">An example of the field is:</p>
    862       <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">    If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     884            <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">    If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    863885</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.6">If the request normally (i.e., without the If-Unmodified-Since header) would result in anything other than a 2xx or 412 status,
    864          the If-Unmodified-Since header <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
    865       </p>
    866       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.7">If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored.</p>
    867       <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.8">The result of a request having both an If-Unmodified-Since header field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since
    868          header fields is undefined by this specification.
    869       </p>
    870       <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
    871       <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
    872       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.last-modified" href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
    873       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The Last-Modified entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the variant was last
    874          modified.
    875       </p>
    876       <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  Last-Modified  = "Last-Modified" ":" HTTP-date
     886               the If-Unmodified-Since header <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
     887            </p>
     888            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.7">If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored.</p>
     889            <p id="rfc.section.6.5.p.8">The result of a request having both an If-Unmodified-Since header field and either an If-None-Match or an If-Modified-Since
     890               header fields is undefined by this specification.
     891            </p>
     892         </div>
     893         <div id="header.last-modified">
     894            <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
     895            <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
     896            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6.6">6.6</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
     897            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.1">The Last-Modified entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the variant was last
     898               modified.
     899            </p>
     900            <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  Last-Modified  = "Last-Modified" ":" HTTP-date
    877901</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.3">An example of its use is</p>
    878       <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
     902            <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
    879903</pre><p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.5">The exact meaning of this header field depends on the implementation of the origin server and the nature of the original resource.
    880          For files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the
    881          most recent of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database gateways, it may be the last-update time
    882          stamp of the record. For virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed.
    883       </p>
    884       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.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
    885          last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that date with the message origination date.
    886       </p>
    887       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.7">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the entity as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of its response.
    888          This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes
    889          near the time that the response is generated.
    890       </p>
    891       <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.8">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
    892       </p>
    893       <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
    894       <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">TBD.</p>
    895       <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
    896       <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    897       </p>
    898       <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a id="ack" href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     904               For files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the
     905               most recent of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database gateways, it may be the last-update time
     906               stamp of the record. For virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed.
     907            </p>
     908            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.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
     909               last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that date with the message origination date.
     910            </p>
     911            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.7">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the entity as close as possible to the time that it generates the Date value of its response.
     912               This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes
     913               near the time that the response is generated.
     914            </p>
     915            <p id="rfc.section.6.6.p.8">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
     916            </p>
     917         </div>
     918      </div>
     919      <div id="IANA.considerations">
     920         <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
     921         <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">TBD.</p>
     922      </div>
     923      <div id="security.considerations">
     924         <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
     925         <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     926         </p>
     927      </div>
     928      <div id="ack">
     929         <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     930      </div>
    899931      <h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.10" href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a> References
    900932      </h1>
    901933      <h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.10.1" id="rfc.section.10.1">10.1</a> Normative References
    902934      </h2>
    903       <table>       
     935      <table>
    904936         <tr>
    905937            <td class="reference"><b id="Part1">[Part1]</b></td>
    906             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
     938            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
    907939            </td>
    908940         </tr>
    909941         <tr>
    910942            <td class="reference"><b id="Part5">[Part5]</b></td>
    911             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
     943            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
    912944            </td>
    913945         </tr>
    914946         <tr>
    915947            <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td>
    916             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
     948            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Day Software">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org" title="One Laptop per Child">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="Hewlett-Packard Company">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org" title="Adobe Systems, Incorporated">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Berners-Lee, T.</a>, <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org" title="World Wide Web Consortium">Lafon, Y., Ed.</a>, and <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" title="greenbytes GmbH">J. Reschke, Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01 (work in progress), January&nbsp;2008.
    917949            </td>
    918950         </tr>
    919951         <tr>
    920952            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
    921             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.
     953            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:sob@harvard.edu" title="Harvard University">Bradner, S.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>”, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.
    922954            </td>
    923955         </tr>
    … …  
    925957      <h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.10.2" id="rfc.section.10.2">10.2</a> Informative References
    926958      </h2>
    927       <table>   
     959      <table>
    928960         <tr>
    929961            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2068">[RFC2068]</b></td>
    930             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2068, January&nbsp;1997.
     962            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Digital Equipment Corporation, Western Research Laboratory">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Nielsen, H.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2068, January&nbsp;1997.
    931963            </td>
    932964         </tr>
    933965         <tr>
    934966            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td>
    935             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.
     967            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@ics.uci.edu" title="University of California, Irvine">Fielding, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:jg@w3.org" title="W3C">Gettys, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:mogul@wrl.dec.com" title="Compaq Computer Corporation">Mogul, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:frystyk@w3.org" title="MIT Laboratory for Computer Science">Frystyk, H.</a>, <a href="mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com" title="Xerox Corporation">Masinter, L.</a>, <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com" title="Microsoft Corporation">Leach, P.</a>, and <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org" title="W3C">T. Berners-Lee</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>”, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.
    936968            </td>
    937969         </tr>
    938970      </table>
    939       <div class="avoidbreak">
    940          <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
    941          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span>
    942                (editor)
    943                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Fielding</span><span class="given-name">Roy T.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Day Software</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Newport Beach</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">92660</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5300</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305"><span class="value">+1-949-706-5305</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com"><span class="email">fielding@gbiv.com</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/" class="url">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></span></address>
    944          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jim Gettys</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Gettys</span><span class="given-name">Jim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">One Laptop per Child</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">21 Oak Knoll Road</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Carlisle</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">01741</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org"><span class="email">jg@laptop.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/" class="url">http://www.laptop.org/</a></span></address>
    945          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Jeffrey C. Mogul</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Mogul</span><span class="given-name">Jeffrey C.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Hewlett-Packard Company</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group</span><span class="street-address vcardline">1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Palo Alto</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">94304</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org"><span class="email">JeffMogul@acm.org</span></a></span></address>
    946          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Frystyk</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com"><span class="email">henrikn@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
    947          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Larry Masinter</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Masinter</span><span class="given-name">Larry</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Adobe Systems, Incorporated</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">345 Park Ave</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">San Jose</span>, <span class="region">CA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">95110</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org"><span class="email">LMM@acm.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/" class="url">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></span></address>
    948          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Paul J. Leach</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Leach</span><span class="given-name">Paul J.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">Microsoft Corporation</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">1 Microsoft Way</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Redmond</span>, <span class="region">WA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">98052</span></span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com"><span class="email">paulle@microsoft.com</span></a></span></address>
    949          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Tim Berners-Lee</span><span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Berners-Lee</span><span class="given-name">Tim</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory</span><span class="street-address vcardline">The Stata Center, Building 32</span><span class="street-address vcardline">32 Vassar Street</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Cambridge</span>, <span class="region">MA</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">02139</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">USA</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org"><span class="email">timbl@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/" class="url">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></span></address>
    950          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Yves Lafon</span>
    951                (editor)
    952                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Lafon</span><span class="given-name">Yves</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">World Wide Web Consortium</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">W3C / ERCIM</span><span class="street-address vcardline">2004, rte des Lucioles</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Sophia-Antipolis</span>, <span class="region">AM</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">06902</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">France</span></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org"><span class="email">ylafon@w3.org</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/" class="url">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></span></address>
    953          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span>
    954                (editor)
    955                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Reschke</span><span class="given-name">Julian F.</span></span></span><span class="org vcardline">greenbytes GmbH</span><span class="adr"><span class="street-address vcardline">Hafenweg 16</span><span class="vcardline"><span class="locality">Muenster</span>, <span class="region">NW</span>&nbsp;<span class="postal-code">48155</span></span><span class="country-name vcardline">Germany</span></span><span class="vcardline tel">Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760"><span class="value">+49 251 2807760</span></a></span><span class="vcardline tel"><span class="type">Fax</span>: <a href="fax:+492512807761"><span class="value">+49 251 2807761</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">EMail: <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de"><span class="email">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</span></a></span><span class="vcardline">URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/" class="url">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></span></address>
    956       </div>
    957       <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a id="compatibility" href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
    958       <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2>
    959       <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
    960       </h1>
    961       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
    962       </h2>
    963       <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
    964       </p>
    965       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00
    966       </h2>
    967       <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    968       <ul>
    969          <li> &lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>&gt;: "Normative and Informative references"
    970          </li>
    971       </ul>
    972       <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p>
    973       <ul>
    974          <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes from Part2.</li>
    975       </ul>
     971      <div id="compatibility">
     972         <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
     973         <div id="changes.from.rfc.2616">
     974            <h2 id="rfc.section.A.1"><a href="#rfc.section.A.1">A.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h2>
     975         </div>
     976      </div>
     977      <div>
     978         <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
     979         </h1>
     980         <div>
     981            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
     982            </h2>
     983            <p id="rfc.section.B.1.p.1">Extracted relevant partitions from <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
     984            </p>
     985         </div>
     986         <div>
     987            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00
     988            </h2>
     989            <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     990            <ul>
     991               <li>&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35</a>&gt;: "Normative and Informative references"
     992               </li>
     993            </ul>
     994            <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p>
     995            <ul>
     996               <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes from Part2.</li>
     997            </ul>
     998         </div>
     999      </div>
    9761000      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    9771001      <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.3">3</a> <a href="#rfc.index.4">4</a> <a href="#rfc.index.E">E</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.L">L</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.S">S</a>
    … …  
    9801004         <ul class="ind">
    9811005            <li><a id="rfc.index.3" href="#rfc.index.3"><b>3</b></a><ul>
    982                   <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.3"><b>3.1</b></a></li>
     1006                  <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.3.1"><b>3.1</b></a></li>
    9831007               </ul>
    9841008            </li>
    9851009            <li><a id="rfc.index.4" href="#rfc.index.4"><b>4</b></a><ul>
    986                   <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.4"><b>3.2</b></a></li>
     1010                  <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.4.1"><b>3.2</b></a></li>
    9871011               </ul>
    9881012            </li>
    … …  
    10671091         </ul>
    10681092      </div>
    1069       <h1><a id="rfc.copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
    1070       <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
    1071       <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
    1072          authors retain all their rights.
    1073       </p>
    1074       <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
    1075          HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
    1076          DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
    1077          WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    1078       </p>
    1079       <h1><a id="rfc.ipr" href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
    1080       <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
    1081          be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
    1082          license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
    1083          identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
    1084          BCP 79.
    1085       </p>
    1086       <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
    1087          of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
    1088          of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
    1089       </p>
    1090       <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    1091          rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
    1092          at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
    1093       </p>
     1093      <div class="avoidbreak">
     1094         <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
     1095         <p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b>
     1096            (editor)
     1097            <br>Day Software<br>23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280<br>Newport Beach, CA&nbsp;92660<br>USA<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+1-949-706-5300">+1-949-706-5300</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+1-949-706-5305">+1-949-706-5305</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com">fielding@gbiv.com</a><br>URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></p>
     1098         <p><b>Jim Gettys</b><br>One Laptop per Child<br>21 Oak Knoll Road<br>Carlisle, MA&nbsp;01741<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:jg@laptop.org">jg@laptop.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.laptop.org/">http://www.laptop.org/</a></p>
     1099         <p><b>Jeffrey C. Mogul</b><br>Hewlett-Packard Company<br>HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group<br>1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177<br>Palo Alto, CA&nbsp;94304<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org">JeffMogul@acm.org</a></p>
     1100         <p><b>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA&nbsp;98052<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com">henrikn@microsoft.com</a></p>
     1101         <p><b>Larry Masinter</b><br>Adobe Systems, Incorporated<br>345 Park Ave<br>San Jose, CA&nbsp;95110<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:LMM@acm.org">LMM@acm.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://larry.masinter.net/">http://larry.masinter.net/</a></p>
     1102         <p><b>Paul J. Leach</b><br>Microsoft Corporation<br>1 Microsoft Way<br>Redmond, WA&nbsp;98052<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:paulle@microsoft.com">paulle@microsoft.com</a></p>
     1103         <p><b>Tim Berners-Lee</b><br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory<br>The Stata Center, Building 32<br>32 Vassar Street<br>Cambridge, MA&nbsp;02139<br>USA<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:timbl@w3.org">timbl@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/">http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</a></p>
     1104         <p><b>Yves Lafon</b>
     1105            (editor)
     1106            <br>World Wide Web Consortium<br>W3C / ERCIM<br>2004, rte des Lucioles<br>Sophia-Antipolis, AM&nbsp;06902<br>France<br>EMail: <a href="mailto:ylafon@w3.org">ylafon@w3.org</a><br>URI: <a href="http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/">http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/</a></p>
     1107         <p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b>
     1108            (editor)
     1109            <br>greenbytes GmbH<br>Hafenweg 16<br>Muenster, NW&nbsp;48155<br>Germany<br>Phone: <a href="tel:+492512807760">+49 251 2807760</a><br>Fax: <a href="fax:+492512807761">+49 251 2807761</a><br>EMail: <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">julian.reschke@greenbytes.de</a><br>URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></p>
     1110      </div>
     1111      <div id="rfc.copyright">
     1112         <h1><a href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
     1113         <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
     1114         <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
     1115            authors retain all their rights.
     1116         </p>
     1117         <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
     1118            HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
     1119            DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
     1120            WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
     1121         </p>
     1122      </div>
     1123      <div id="rfc.ipr">
     1124         <h1><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
     1125         <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
     1126            be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
     1127            license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
     1128            identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
     1129            BCP 79.
     1130         </p>
     1131         <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
     1132            of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
     1133            of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at <a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
     1134         </p>
     1135         <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
     1136            rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
     1137            at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
     1138         </p>
     1139      </div>
    10941140   </body>
    10951141</html>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.