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/03/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 {
     
    122123table.tt {
    123124  vertical-align: top;
     125  border-color: gray;
     126}
     127table.tt th {
     128  border-color: gray;
     129}
     130table.tt td {
     131  border-color: gray;
     132}
     133table.all {
     134  border-style: solid;
     135  border-width: 2px;
    124136}
    125137table.full {
    126   border-style: outset;
    127   border-width: 1px;
    128 }
    129 table.headers {
    130   border-style: outset;
    131   border-width: 1px;
     138  border-style: solid;
     139  border-width: 2px;
    132140}
    133141table.tt td {
    134142  vertical-align: top;
    135143}
     144table.all td {
     145  border-style: solid;
     146  border-width: 1px;
     147}
    136148table.full td {
    137   border-style: inset;
     149  border-style: none solid;
    138150  border-width: 1px;
    139151}
     
    141153  vertical-align: top;
    142154}
     155table.all th {
     156  border-style: solid;
     157  border-width: 1px;
     158}
    143159table.full th {
    144   border-style: inset;
    145   border-width: 1px;
     160  border-style: solid;
     161  border-width: 1px 1px 2px 1px;
    146162}
    147163table.headers th {
    148   border-style: none none inset none;
    149   border-width: 1px;
     164  border-style: none none solid none;
     165  border-width: 2px;
    150166}
    151167table.left {
     
    162178  caption-side: bottom;
    163179  font-weight: bold;
    164   font-size: 9pt;
     180  font-size: 10pt;
    165181  margin-top: .5em;
    166182}
     
    169185  border-spacing: 1px;
    170186  width: 95%;
    171   font-size: 10pt;
     187  font-size: 11pt;
    172188  color: white;
    173189}
     
    177193td.topnowrap {
    178194  vertical-align: top;
    179   white-space: nowrap; 
     195  white-space: nowrap;
    180196}
    181197table.header td {
     
    197213  list-style: none;
    198214  margin-left: 1.5em;
    199   margin-right: 0em;
    200215  padding-left: 0em;
    201216}
     
    203218  line-height: 150%;
    204219  font-weight: bold;
    205   font-size: 10pt;
    206220  margin-left: 0em;
    207   margin-right: 0em;
    208221}
    209222ul.toc li li {
    210223  line-height: normal;
    211224  font-weight: normal;
    212   font-size: 9pt;
     225  font-size: 10pt;
    213226  margin-left: 0em;
    214   margin-right: 0em;
    215227}
    216228li.excluded {
     
    219231ul p {
    220232  margin-left: 0em;
     233}
     234.title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 {
     235  font-family: candara, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     236}
     237samp, tt, code, pre {
     238  font: consolas, monospace;
    221239}
    222240ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
    223241  list-style: none;
    224242  margin-left: 1.5em;
    225   margin-right: 0em;
    226243  padding-left: 0em;
    227244  page-break-before: avoid;
     
    231248  line-height: 200%;
    232249  margin-left: 0em;
    233   margin-right: 0em;
    234250}
    235251ul.ind li li {
     
    237253  line-height: 150%;
    238254  margin-left: 0em;
    239   margin-right: 0em;
    240255}
    241256.avoidbreak {
     
    261276  font-weight: bold;
    262277  text-align: center;
    263   font-size: 9pt;
     278  font-size: 10pt;
    264279}
    265280.filename {
    266281  color: #333333;
     282  font-size: 75%;
    267283  font-weight: bold;
    268   font-size: 12pt;
    269284  line-height: 21pt;
    270285  text-align: center;
     
    273288  font-weight: bold;
    274289}
    275 .hidden {
    276   display: none;
    277 }
    278290.left {
    279291  text-align: left;
     
    283295}
    284296.title {
    285   color: #990000;
    286   font-size: 18pt;
     297  color: green;
     298  font-size: 150%;
    287299  line-height: 18pt;
    288300  font-weight: bold;
     
    290302  margin-top: 36pt;
    291303}
    292 .vcardline {
    293   display: block;
    294 }
    295304.warning {
    296   font-size: 14pt;
     305  font-size: 130%;
    297306  background-color: yellow;
    298307}
     
    303312    display: none;
    304313  }
    305  
     314
    306315  a {
    307316    color: black;
     
    318327    background-color: white;
    319328    vertical-align: top;
    320     font-size: 12pt;
     329    font-size: 110%;
    321330  }
    322331
    323   ul.toc a::after {
     332  ul.toc a:nth-child(2)::after {
    324333    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
    325334  }
    326  
     335
    327336  ul.ind li li a {
    328337    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
    329338  }
    330  
     339
    331340  .print2col {
    332341    column-count: 2;
     
    338347@page {
    339348  @top-left {
    340        content: "Internet-Draft"; 
    341   } 
     349       content: "Internet-Draft";
     350  }
    342351  @top-right {
    343        content: "June 2008"; 
    344   } 
     352       content: "June 2008";
     353  }
    345354  @top-center {
    346        content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 4"; 
    347   } 
     355       content: "HTTP/1.1, Part 4";
     356  }
    348357  @bottom-left {
    349        content: "Fielding, et al."; 
    350   } 
     358       content: "Fielding, et al.";
     359  }
    351360  @bottom-center {
    352        content: "Standards Track";
    353   } 
     361       content: "Expires December 19, 2008";
     362  }
    354363  @bottom-right {
    355        content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 
    356   } 
     364       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
     365  }
    357366}
    358367
    359 @page:first { 
     368@page:first {
    360369    @top-left {
    361370      content: normal;
     
    385394      <link rel="Appendix" title="A Compatibility with Previous Versions" href="#rfc.section.A">
    386395      <link rel="Appendix" title="B Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.B">
    387       <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/">
     396      <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/">
    388397      <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
    389398      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R.">
     
    414423            </tr>
    415424            <tr>
    416                <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
     425               <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    417426               </td>
    418427               <td class="right">J. Gettys</td>
     
    485494      </table>
    486495      <p class="title">HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-03</span></p>
    487       <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
    488       <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
    489          is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
    490          6 of BCP 79.
    491       </p>
    492       <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
    493          that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
    494       </p>
    495       <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
    496          documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
    497          in progress”.
    498       </p>
    499       <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>.
    500       </p>
    501       <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>.
    502       </p>
    503       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2008.</p>
    504       <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
     496      <div id="rfc.status">
     497         <h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of this Memo</a></h1>
     498         <p>By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she
     499            is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section
     500            6 of BCP 79.
     501         </p>
     502         <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note
     503            that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
     504         </p>
     505         <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     506            documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
     507            in progress”.
     508         </p>
     509         <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>.
     510         </p>
     511         <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>.
     512         </p>
     513         <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2008.</p>
     514      </div>
     515      <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
    505516      <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
    506517         systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 4 of the
    507518         seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part
    508519         4 defines request header fields for indicating conditional requests and the rules for constructing responses to those requests.
    509       </p> 
    510       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
     520      </p>
     521      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>
    511522      <p>Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues
    512523         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;.
    513       </p> 
     524      </p>
    514525      <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.02" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02">Appendix&nbsp;B.4</a>.
    515       </p> 
     526      </p>
    516527      <hr class="noprint">
    517528      <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
    518529      <ul class="toc">
    519          <li>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
    520                <li>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
     530         <li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul>
     531               <li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></li>
    521532            </ul>
    522533         </li>
    523          <li>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li>
    524          <li>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></li>
    525          <li>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.4">Status Code Definitions</a><ul>
    526                <li>4.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li>
    527                <li>4.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li>
     534         <li><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></li>
     535         <li><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></li>
     536         <li><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.4">Status Code Definitions</a><ul>
     537               <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></li>
     538               <li><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></li>
    528539            </ul>
    529540         </li>
    530          <li>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></li>
    531          <li>6.&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>
    532          <li>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
    533                <li>7.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></li>
    534                <li>7.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></li>
    535                <li>7.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></li>
    536                <li>7.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></li>
    537                <li>7.5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></li>
    538                <li>7.6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></li>
     541         <li><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></li>
     542         <li><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</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>
     543         <li><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a><ul>
     544               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></li>
     545               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.2">7.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></li>
     546               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.3">7.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></li>
     547               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.4">7.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></li>
     548               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.5">7.5</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></li>
     549               <li><a href="#rfc.section.7.6">7.6</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></li>
    539550            </ul>
    540551         </li>
    541          <li>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a><ul>
    542                <li>8.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></li>
     552         <li><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a><ul>
     553               <li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></li>
    543554            </ul>
    544555         </li>
    545          <li>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></li>
    546          <li>10.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
    547          <li>11.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
    548                <li>11.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
    549                <li>11.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
     556         <li><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></li>
     557         <li><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></li>
     558         <li><a href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul>
     559               <li><a href="#rfc.section.11.1">11.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li>
     560               <li><a href="#rfc.section.11.2">11.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li>
    550561            </ul>
    551562         </li>
    552          <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    553          <li>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
    554                <li>A.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
     563         <li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a><ul>
     564               <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>
    555565            </ul>
    556566         </li>
    557          <li>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
    558                <li>B.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
    559                <li>B.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.2">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00</a></li>
    560                <li>B.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01</a></li>
    561                <li>B.4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02</a></li>
     567         <li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a><ul>
     568               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.1">Since RFC2616</a></li>
     569               <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>
     570               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.B.3">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01</a></li>
     571               <li><a href="#rfc.section.B.4">B.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02</a></li>
    562572            </ul>
    563573         </li>
    564574         <li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li>
     575         <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    565576         <li><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements</a></li>
    566577      </ul>
    567       <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
    568       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 response metadata for indicating potential changes to payload content, including modification
    569          time stamps and opaque entity-tags, and the HTTP conditional request mechanisms that allow preconditions to be placed on a
    570          request method. Conditional GET requests allow for efficient cache updates. Other conditional request methods are used to
    571          protect against overwriting or misunderstanding the state of a resource that has been changed unbeknownst to the requesting
    572          client.
    573       </p>
    574       <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
    575          errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
    576          resource metadata will be discussed first and then followed by each conditional request-header, concluding with a definition
    577          of precedence and the expectation of ordering strong validator checks before weak validator checks. It is likely that more
    578          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
    579          had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
    580       </p>
    581       <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>
    582       <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"
    583          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>.
    584       </p>
    585       <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."
    586       </p>
    587       <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1>
    588       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="Augmented BNF">Section 2.1</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> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>: <span class="comment" id="abnf.dep">[<a href="#abnf.dep" class="smpl">abnf.dep</a>: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from RFC 5234, see &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;.]</span>
    589       </p>
    590       <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> = &lt;quoted-string, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
     578      <div id="introduction">
     579         <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
     580         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">This document defines HTTP/1.1 response metadata for indicating potential changes to payload content, including modification
     581            time stamps and opaque entity-tags, and the HTTP conditional request mechanisms that allow preconditions to be placed on a
     582            request method. Conditional GET requests allow for efficient cache updates. Other conditional request methods are used to
     583            protect against overwriting or misunderstanding the state of a resource that has been changed unbeknownst to the requesting
     584            client.
     585         </p>
     586         <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
     587            errata changes. The next draft will reorganize the sections to better reflect the content. In particular, the sections on
     588            resource metadata will be discussed first and then followed by each conditional request-header, concluding with a definition
     589            of precedence and the expectation of ordering strong validator checks before weak validator checks. It is likely that more
     590            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
     591            had become in <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.
     592         </p>
     593         <div id="intro.requirements">
     594            <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#intro.requirements">Requirements</a></h2>
     595            <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"
     596               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>.
     597            </p>
     598            <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."
     599            </p>
     600         </div>
     601      </div>
     602      <div id="notation">
     603         <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar</a></h1>
     604         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation.abnf" title="Augmented BNF">Section 2.1</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> and the core rules defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>: <span class="comment" id="abnf.dep">[<a href="#abnf.dep" class="smpl">abnf.dep</a>: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from RFC 5234, see &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;.]</span>
     605         </p>
     606         <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> = &lt;quoted-string, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#basic.rules" title="Basic Rules">Section 2.2</a>&gt;
    591607</pre><div id="abnf.dependencies">
    592          <p id="rfc.section.2.p.3">  The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
    593       </div>
    594       <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>     = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#full.date" title="Full Date">Section 3.3.1</a>&gt;
    595 </pre><h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tags" href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></h1>
    596       <p id="rfc.section.3.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
    597          ETag (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>), If-Match (<a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;7.2</a>), If-None-Match (<a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;7.4</a>), and If-Range (<a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 6.3</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;5</a>. An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
    598       </p>
    599       <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></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>  <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a> ] <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a>
     608            <p id="rfc.section.2.p.3"> The ABNF rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
     609         </div>
     610         <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>     = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#full.date" title="Full Date">Section 3.3.1</a>&gt;
     611</pre></div>
     612      <div id="entity.tags">
     613         <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tags">Entity Tags</a></h1>
     614         <p id="rfc.section.3.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
     615            ETag (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>), If-Match (<a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;7.2</a>), If-None-Match (<a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;7.4</a>), and If-Range (<a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 6.3</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;5</a>. An entity tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
     616         </p>
     617         <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></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>  <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a> ] <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a>
    600618  <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">weak</a>       = "W/"
    601619  <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a> = <a href="#notation" class="smpl">quoted-string</a>
    602620</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.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.
    603       </p>
    604       <p id="rfc.section.3.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
    605          significant change in semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison.
    606       </p>
    607       <p id="rfc.section.3.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
    608          obtained by requests on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those entities.
    609       </p>
    610       <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;Status Code Definitions
    611       </h1>
    612       <div id="rfc.iref.3"></div>
    613       <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div>
    614       <h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.304" href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h2>
    615       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
    616       </p>
    617       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2">The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following header fields:
    618       </p>
    619       <ul>
    620          <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.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a></li>
    621       </ul>
    622       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without
    623          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.
    624       </p>
    625       <ul>
    626          <li>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request</li>
    627          <li>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
    628             variant
    629          </li>
    630       </ul>
    631       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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;5</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.
    632       </p>
    633       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
    634       </p>
    635       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
    636       </p>
    637       <div id="rfc.iref.4"></div>
    638       <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div>
    639       <h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.412" href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h2>
    640       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.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
    641          response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (header field data) and thus
    642          prevent the requested method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.
    643       </p>
    644       <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="weak.and.strong.validators" href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></h1>
    645       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different entities,
    646          one normally would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity-headers) changes in any way, then the associated
    647          validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong validator."
    648       </p>
    649       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only on semantically significant changes, and
    650          not when insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is
    651          a "weak validator."
    652       </p>
    653       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can
    654          think of a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity changes, while a weak value changes whenever
    655          the meaning of an entity changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific
    656          entity, while a weak validator is part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities.
    657       </p>
    658       <ul class="empty">
    659          <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.
    660          </li>
    661          <li>An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible
    662             that the resource might be modified twice during a single second.
    663          </li>
    664          <li>Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects;
    665             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
    666             that period is likely "good enough" to be equivalent.
    667          </li>
    668       </ul>
    669       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a validating header field,
    670          or when a server compares two validators.
    671       </p>
    672       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.5">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
    673          of an entity. For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full entity. However, only a strong validator
    674          is usable for a sub-range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent entity.
    675       </p>
    676       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.6">Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in range requests (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>).
    677       </p>
    678       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.7">The only function that HTTP/1.1 defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending
    679          on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:
    680       </p>
    681       <ul>
    682          <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.
    683          </li>
    684          <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.
    685          </li>
    686       </ul>
    687       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.8">An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;3</a> gives the syntax for entity tags.
    688       </p>
    689       <p id="rfc.section.5.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
    690          strong, using the following rules:
    691       </p>
    692       <ul>
    693          <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the entity and,</li>
    694          <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated entity did not change twice during the second covered by the presented
    695             validator.
    696          </li>
    697       </ul>
    698       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.10">or </p>
    699       <ul>
    700          <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
    701             a cache entry for the associated entity, and
    702          </li>
    703          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    704          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    705       </ul>
    706       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.11">or </p>
    707       <ul>
    708          <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and</li>
    709          <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
    710          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    711       </ul>
    712       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.12">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
    713          both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
    714          time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
    715          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.
    716       </p>
    717       <p id="rfc.section.5.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,
    718          it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here.
    719       </p>
    720       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.14">A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
    721       </p>
    722       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.15">These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range retrievals on values that have been obtained from
    723          HTTP/1.0 servers.
    724       </p>
    725       <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</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>
    726       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
    727          ought to be used, and for what purposes.
    728       </p>
    729       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
    730       <ul>
    731          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
    732          </li>
    733          <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,
    734             or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag.
    735          </li>
    736          <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
    737             result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header would lead to serious problems.
    738          </li>
    739       </ul>
    740       <p id="rfc.section.6.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
    741          value.
    742       </p>
    743       <p id="rfc.section.6.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.
    744       </p>
    745       <ul class="empty">
    746          <li> <b>Note:</b> in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an origin server must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag value
    747             for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache entries
    748             might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a
    749             cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past.
    750          </li>
    751       </ul>
    752       <p id="rfc.section.6.p.5">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
    753       <ul>
    754          <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).
    755          </li>
    756          <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).
    757          </li>
    758          <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.
    759          </li>
    760          <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.
    761          </li>
    762       </ul>
    763       <p id="rfc.section.6.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
    764          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
    765          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
    766          the request.
    767       </p>
    768       <p id="rfc.section.6.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
    769          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
    770          fields in the request.
    771       </p>
    772       <ul class="empty">
    773          <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
    774             as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
    775             assumptions about the validators they receive.
    776          </li>
    777          <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
    778             support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare
    779             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
    780             HTTP/1.1 origin servers should not provide one.
    781          </li>
    782       </ul>
    783       <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.fields" href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
    784       <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to conditional requests.</p>
    785       <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
    786          receives the entity.
    787       </p>
    788       <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
    789       <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
    790       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
    791       <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">The ETag response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant. The headers used with
    792          entity tags are described in Sections <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.2" title="If-Match">7.2</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">7.4</a> of this document, and in <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 6.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. 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;5</a>).
    793       </p>
    794       <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = "ETag" ":" <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     621         </p>
     622         <p id="rfc.section.3.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
     623            significant change in semantics. A weak entity tag can only be used for weak comparison.
     624         </p>
     625         <p id="rfc.section.3.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
     626            obtained by requests on different URIs does not imply the equivalence of those entities.
     627         </p>
     628      </div>
     629      <div>
     630         <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;Status Code Definitions
     631         </h1>
     632         <div id="status.304">
     633            <div id="rfc.iref.3.1"></div>
     634            <div id="rfc.iref.s.1"></div>
     635            <h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.304">304 Not Modified</a></h2>
     636            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
     637            </p>
     638            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2">The response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following header fields:
     639            </p>
     640            <ul>
     641               <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.Part1.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a></li>
     642            </ul>
     643            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">If a clockless origin server obeys these rules, and proxies and clients add their own Date to any response received without
     644               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.
     645            </p>
     646            <ul>
     647               <li>ETag and/or Content-Location, if the header would have been sent in a 200 response to the same request</li>
     648               <li>Expires, Cache-Control, and/or Vary, if the field-value might differ from that sent in any previous response for the same
     649                  variant
     650               </li>
     651            </ul>
     652            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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;5</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.
     653            </p>
     654            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
     655            </p>
     656            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.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.
     657            </p>
     658         </div>
     659         <div id="status.412">
     660            <div id="rfc.iref.4.1"></div>
     661            <div id="rfc.iref.s.2"></div>
     662            <h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.412">412 Precondition Failed</a></h2>
     663            <p id="rfc.section.4.2.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
     664               response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource metainformation (header field data) and thus
     665               prevent the requested method from being applied to a resource other than the one intended.
     666            </p>
     667         </div>
     668      </div>
     669      <div id="weak.and.strong.validators">
     670         <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak and Strong Validators</a></h1>
     671         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">Since both origin servers and caches will compare two validators to decide if they represent the same or different entities,
     672            one normally would expect that if the entity (the entity-body or any entity-headers) changes in any way, then the associated
     673            validator would change as well. If this is true, then we call this validator a "strong validator."
     674         </p>
     675         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">However, there might be cases when a server prefers to change the validator only on semantically significant changes, and
     676            not when insignificant aspects of the entity change. A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is
     677            a "weak validator."
     678         </p>
     679         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">Entity tags are normally "strong validators," but the protocol provides a mechanism to tag an entity tag as "weak." One can
     680            think of a strong validator as one that changes whenever the bits of an entity changes, while a weak value changes whenever
     681            the meaning of an entity changes. Alternatively, one can think of a strong validator as part of an identifier for a specific
     682            entity, while a weak validator is part of an identifier for a set of semantically equivalent entities.
     683         </p>
     684         <ul class="empty">
     685            <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.
     686            </li>
     687            <li>An entity's modification time, if represented with one-second resolution, could be a weak validator, since it is possible
     688               that the resource might be modified twice during a single second.
     689            </li>
     690            <li>Support for weak validators is optional. However, weak validators allow for more efficient caching of equivalent objects;
     691               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
     692               that period is likely "good enough" to be equivalent.
     693            </li>
     694         </ul>
     695         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">A "use" of a validator is either when a client generates a request and includes the validator in a validating header field,
     696            or when a server compares two validators.
     697         </p>
     698         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.5">Strong validators are usable in any context. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality
     699            of an entity. For example, either kind is usable for a conditional GET of a full entity. However, only a strong validator
     700            is usable for a sub-range retrieval, since otherwise the client might end up with an internally inconsistent entity.
     701         </p>
     702         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.6">Clients <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use weak validators in range requests (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>).
     703         </p>
     704         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.7">The only function that HTTP/1.1 defines on validators is comparison. There are two validator comparison functions, depending
     705            on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:
     706         </p>
     707         <ul>
     708            <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.
     709            </li>
     710            <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.
     711            </li>
     712         </ul>
     713         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.8">An entity tag is strong unless it is explicitly tagged as weak. <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;3</a> gives the syntax for entity tags.
     714         </p>
     715         <p id="rfc.section.5.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
     716            strong, using the following rules:
     717         </p>
     718         <ul>
     719            <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the entity and,</li>
     720            <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated entity did not change twice during the second covered by the presented
     721               validator.
     722            </li>
     723         </ul>
     724         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.10">or </p>
     725         <ul>
     726            <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
     727               a cache entry for the associated entity, and
     728            </li>
     729            <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     730            <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     731         </ul>
     732         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.11">or </p>
     733         <ul>
     734            <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the entity, and</li>
     735            <li>That cache entry includes a Date value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and</li>
     736            <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     737         </ul>
     738         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.12">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
     739            both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a Date value equal to its Last-Modified
     740            time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified values are generated from
     741            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.
     742         </p>
     743         <p id="rfc.section.5.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,
     744            it <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> do this only if the Last-Modified time is strong in the sense described here.
     745         </p>
     746         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.14">A cache or origin server receiving a conditional range request (<a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.3"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>) <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use the strong comparison function to evaluate the condition.
     747         </p>
     748         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.15">These rules allow HTTP/1.1 caches and clients to safely perform sub-range retrievals on values that have been obtained from
     749            HTTP/1.0 servers.
     750         </p>
     751      </div>
     752      <div id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">
     753         <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</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>
     754         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
     755            ought to be used, and for what purposes.
     756         </p>
     757         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
     758         <ul>
     759            <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
     760            </li>
     761            <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,
     762               or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity tag.
     763            </li>
     764            <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
     765               result from using this date in an If-Modified-Since header would lead to serious problems.
     766            </li>
     767         </ul>
     768         <p id="rfc.section.6.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
     769            value.
     770         </p>
     771         <p id="rfc.section.6.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.
     772         </p>
     773         <ul class="empty">
     774            <li><b>Note:</b> in order to provide semantically transparent caching, an origin server must avoid reusing a specific strong entity tag value
     775               for two different entities, or reusing a specific weak entity tag value for two semantically different entities. Cache entries
     776               might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times, so it might be inappropriate to expect that a
     777               cache will never again attempt to validate an entry using a validator that it obtained at some point in the past.
     778            </li>
     779         </ul>
     780         <p id="rfc.section.6.p.5">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
     781         <ul>
     782            <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).
     783            </li>
     784            <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).
     785            </li>
     786            <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.
     787            </li>
     788            <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.
     789            </li>
     790         </ul>
     791         <p id="rfc.section.6.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
     792            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
     793            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
     794            the request.
     795         </p>
     796         <p id="rfc.section.6.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
     797            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
     798            fields in the request.
     799         </p>
     800         <ul class="empty">
     801            <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
     802               as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
     803               assumptions about the validators they receive.
     804            </li>
     805            <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches will ignore entity tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
     806               support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers should provide Last-Modified values. In those rare
     807               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
     808               HTTP/1.1 origin servers should not provide one.
     809            </li>
     810         </ul>
     811      </div>
     812      <div id="header.fields">
     813         <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.fields">Header Field Definitions</a></h1>
     814         <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields related to conditional requests.</p>
     815         <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">For entity-header fields, both sender and recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who sends and who
     816            receives the entity.
     817         </p>
     818         <div id="header.etag">
     819            <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
     820            <div id="rfc.iref.h.1"></div>
     821            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.1"><a href="#rfc.section.7.1">7.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
     822            <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.1">The ETag response-header field provides the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant. The headers used with
     823               entity tags are described in Sections <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.2" title="If-Match">7.2</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">7.4</a> of this document, and in <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 6.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.4"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a>. 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;5</a>).
     824            </p>
     825            <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = "ETag" ":" <a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    795826</pre><div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div>
    796       <p>Examples:</p>  <pre class="text">   ETag: "xyzzy"
     827            <p>Examples:</p><pre class="text">   ETag: "xyzzy"
    797828   ETag: W/"xyzzy"
    798829   ETag: ""
    799830</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.4">The ETag response-header field value, an entity tag, provides for an "opaque" cache validator. This might allow more reliable
    800          validation in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date
    801          values is not sufficient, or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification
    802          dates.
    803       </p>
    804       <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.5">The principle behind entity tags is that only the service author knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an
    805          appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality
    806          would open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other headers (except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0)
    807          are never used for purposes of validating a cache entry.
    808       </p>
    809       <div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
    810       <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
    811       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2">7.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-match" href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
    812       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
    813          obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity
    814          tags in the If-Match header field. Entity tags are defined in <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;3</a>. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead.
    815          It is also used, on updating requests, to prevent inadvertent modification of the wrong version of a resource. As a special
    816          case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.
    817       </p>
    818       <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> )
     831               validation in situations where it is inconvenient to store modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date
     832               values is not sufficient, or where the origin server wishes to avoid certain paradoxes that might arise from the use of modification
     833               dates.
     834            </p>
     835            <p id="rfc.section.7.1.p.5">The principle behind entity tags is that only the service author knows the semantics of a resource well enough to select an
     836               appropriate cache validation mechanism, and the specification of any validator comparison function more complex than byte-equality
     837               would open up a can of worms. Thus, comparisons of any other headers (except Last-Modified, for compatibility with HTTP/1.0)
     838               are never used for purposes of validating a cache entry.
     839            </p>
     840         </div>
     841         <div id="header.if-match">
     842            <div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
     843            <div id="rfc.iref.h.2"></div>
     844            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.2"><a href="#rfc.section.7.2">7.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
     845            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
     846               obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is current by including a list of their associated entity
     847               tags in the If-Match header field. Entity tags are defined in <a href="#entity.tags" title="Entity Tags">Section&nbsp;3</a>. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead.
     848               It is also used, on updating requests, to prevent inadvertent modification of the wrong version of a resource. As a special
     849               case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.
     850            </p>
     851            <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "If-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> )
    819852</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
    820          request (without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
    821          then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-Match header field did not exist.
    822       </p>
    823       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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;5</a>) to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
    824       </p>
    825       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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,
    826          such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved it.
    827       </p>
    828       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
    829          header <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
    830       </p>
    831       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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 16.5</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.
    832       </p>
    833       <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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.
    834          This allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the request to be successful if the resource has been changed without
    835          their knowledge. Examples:
    836       </p>
    837       <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="text">    If-Match: "xyzzy"
     853               request (without the If-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
     854               then the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the requested method as if the If-Match header field did not exist.
     855            </p>
     856            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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;5</a>) to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
     857            </p>
     858            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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,
     859               such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the client last retrieved it.
     860            </p>
     861            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
     862               header <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
     863            </p>
     864            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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 16.5</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.
     865            </p>
     866            <p id="rfc.section.7.2.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.
     867               This allows the user to indicate that they do not wish the request to be successful if the resource has been changed without
     868               their knowledge. Examples:
     869            </p>
     870            <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div><pre class="text">    If-Match: "xyzzy"
    838871    If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    839872    If-Match: *
    840873</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.2.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
    841          is undefined by this specification.
    842       </p>
    843       <div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
    844       <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
    845       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.3"><a href="#rfc.section.7.3">7.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-modified-since" href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
    846       <p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.1">The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional: if the requested variant has not
    847          been modified since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be returned from the server; instead, a 304 (Not
    848          Modified) response will be returned without any message-body.
    849       </p>
    850       <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = "If-Modified-Since" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     874               is undefined by this specification.
     875            </p>
     876         </div>
     877         <div id="header.if-modified-since">
     878            <div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
     879            <div id="rfc.iref.h.3"></div>
     880            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.3"><a href="#rfc.section.7.3">7.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
     881            <p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.1">The If-Modified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional: if the requested variant has not
     882               been modified since the time specified in this field, an entity will not be returned from the server; instead, a 304 (Not
     883               Modified) response will be returned without any message-body.
     884            </p>
     885            <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = "If-Modified-Since" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    851886</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    852       <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">    If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     887            <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">    If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    853888</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header and no Range header requests that the identified entity be transferred only
    854          if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes
    855          the following cases:
    856       </p>
    857       <ol>
    858          <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a 200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is
    859             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.
    860          </li>
    861          <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>
    862          <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.
    863          </li>
    864       </ol>
    865       <p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
    866       <ul class="empty">
    867          <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 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
    868          </li>
    869          <li> <b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
    870          </li>
    871          <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
    872             function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not Modified) response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since
    873             header field for cache validation, clients are advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last-Modified header
    874             field whenever possible.
    875          </li>
    876          <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
    877             the same request, the client should be aware of the fact that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time.
    878             The client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems due to the different encodings of time between the
    879             client and server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first
    880             requested and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the
    881             If-Modified-Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different
    882             time bases between client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
    883          </li>
    884       </ul>
    885       <p id="rfc.section.7.3.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
    886          fields is undefined by this specification.
    887       </p>
    888       <div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
    889       <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
    890       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.4">7.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-none-match" href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
    891       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
    892          previously obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is current by including a list of their associated
    893          entity tags in the If-None-Match header field. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information
    894          with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT) from inadvertently modifying
    895          an existing resource when the client believes that the resource does not exist.
    896       </p>
    897       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.2">As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.</p>
    898       <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> )
     889               if it has been modified since the date given by the If-Modified-Since header. The algorithm for determining this includes
     890               the following cases:
     891            </p>
     892            <ol>
     893               <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a 200 (OK) status, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is
     894                  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.
     895               </li>
     896               <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>
     897               <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.
     898               </li>
     899            </ol>
     900            <p id="rfc.section.7.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
     901            <ul class="empty">
     902               <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 6.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.5"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
     903               </li>
     904               <li><b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
     905               </li>
     906               <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
     907                  function, for deciding whether to send a 304 (Not Modified) response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since
     908                  header field for cache validation, clients are advised to use the exact date string received in a previous Last-Modified header
     909                  field whenever possible.
     910               </li>
     911               <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
     912                  the same request, the client should be aware of the fact that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding of time.
     913                  The client should consider unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems due to the different encodings of time between the
     914                  client and server. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first
     915                  requested and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the
     916                  If-Modified-Since date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different
     917                  time bases between client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
     918               </li>
     919            </ul>
     920            <p id="rfc.section.7.3.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
     921               fields is undefined by this specification.
     922            </p>
     923         </div>
     924         <div id="header.if-none-match">
     925            <div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
     926            <div id="rfc.iref.h.4"></div>
     927            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.4"><a href="#rfc.section.7.4">7.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
     928            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
     929               previously obtained from the resource can verify that none of those entities is current by including a list of their associated
     930               entity tags in the If-None-Match header field. The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information
     931               with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. It is also used to prevent a method (e.g. PUT) from inadvertently modifying
     932               an existing resource when the client believes that the resource does not exist.
     933            </p>
     934            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.2">As a special case, the value "*" matches any current entity of the resource.</p>
     935            <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "If-None-Match" ":" ( "*" | 1#<a href="#entity.tags" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> )
    899936</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
    900          request (without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
    901          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
    902          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
    903          that matched. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed).
    904       </p>
    905       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.5">See <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;5</a> for rules on how to determine if two entity tags match.
    906       </p>
    907       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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.
    908       </p>
    909       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
    910          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;6</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
    911       </p>
    912       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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 16.5</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.
    913       </p>
    914       <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.9">Examples:</p>
    915       <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">    If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
     937               request (without the If-None-Match header) on that resource, or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource,
     938               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
     939               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
     940               that matched. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a status of 412 (Precondition Failed).
     941            </p>
     942            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.5">See <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">Section&nbsp;5</a> for rules on how to determine if two entity tags match.
     943            </p>
     944            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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.
     945            </p>
     946            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
     947               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;6</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
     948            </p>
     949            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.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 16.5</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.
     950            </p>
     951            <p id="rfc.section.7.4.p.9">Examples:</p>
     952            <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">    If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
    916953    If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy"
    917954    If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
     
    919956    If-None-Match: *
    920957</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.4.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
    921          fields is undefined by this specification.
    922       </p>
    923       <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
    924       <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
    925       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.5"><a href="#rfc.section.7.5">7.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-unmodified-since" href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
    926       <p id="rfc.section.7.5.p.1">The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. If the requested resource has not
    927          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.
    928       </p>
    929       <p id="rfc.section.7.5.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).
    930       </p>
    931       <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     958               fields is undefined by this specification.
     959            </p>
     960         </div>
     961         <div id="header.if-unmodified-since">
     962            <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
     963            <div id="rfc.iref.h.5"></div>
     964            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.5"><a href="#rfc.section.7.5">7.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
     965            <p id="rfc.section.7.5.p.1">The If-Unmodified-Since request-header field is used with a method to make it conditional. If the requested resource has not
     966               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.
     967            </p>
     968            <p id="rfc.section.7.5.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).
     969            </p>
     970            <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = "If-Unmodified-Since" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    932971</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.5.p.4">An example of the field is:</p>
    933       <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     972            <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">    If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    934973</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.5.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,
    935          the If-Unmodified-Since header <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
    936       </p>
    937       <p id="rfc.section.7.5.p.7">If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored.</p>
    938       <p id="rfc.section.7.5.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
    939          header fields is undefined by this specification.
    940       </p>
    941       <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
    942       <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
    943       <h2 id="rfc.section.7.6"><a href="#rfc.section.7.6">7.6</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.last-modified" href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
    944       <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.1">The Last-Modified entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the variant was last
    945          modified.
    946       </p>
    947       <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a>  = "Last-Modified" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     974               the If-Unmodified-Since header <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
     975            </p>
     976            <p id="rfc.section.7.5.p.7">If the specified date is invalid, the header is ignored.</p>
     977            <p id="rfc.section.7.5.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
     978               header fields is undefined by this specification.
     979            </p>
     980         </div>
     981         <div id="header.last-modified">
     982            <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
     983            <div id="rfc.iref.h.6"></div>
     984            <h2 id="rfc.section.7.6"><a href="#rfc.section.7.6">7.6</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
     985            <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.1">The Last-Modified entity-header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the variant was last
     986               modified.
     987            </p>
     988            <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a>  = "Last-Modified" ":" <a href="#abnf.dependencies" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    948989</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.3">An example of its use is</p>
    949       <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">    Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
     990            <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">    Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
    950991</pre><p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.5">The exact meaning of this header field depends on the implementation of the origin server and the nature of the original resource.
    951          For files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the
    952          most recent of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database gateways, it may be the last-update time
    953          stamp of the record. For virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed.
    954       </p>
    955       <p id="rfc.section.7.6.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
    956          last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that date with the message origination date.
    957       </p>
    958       <p id="rfc.section.7.6.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.
    959          This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes
    960          near the time that the response is generated.
    961       </p>
    962       <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.8">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
    963       </p>
    964       <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.9">The Last-Modified entity-header field value is often used as a cache validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered
    965          to be valid if the entity has not been modified since the Last-Modified value.
    966       </p>
    967       <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
    968       <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="message.header.registration" href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></h2>
    969       <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.1">The Message Header Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html">http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html</a>&gt; should be updated with the permanent registrations below (see <a href="#RFC3864" id="rfc.xref.RFC3864.1"><cite title="Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields">[RFC3864]</cite></a>):
    970       </p>
    971       <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
    972          <table class="tt full center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    973             <thead>
    974                <tr>
    975                   <th>Header Field Name</th>
    976                   <th>Protocol</th>
    977                   <th>Status</th>
    978                   <th>Reference</th>
    979                </tr>
    980             </thead>
    981             <tbody>
    982                <tr>
    983                   <td class="left">ETag</td>
    984                   <td class="left">http</td>
    985                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    986                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.2" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>
    987                   </td>
    988                </tr>
    989                <tr>
    990                   <td class="left">If-Match</td>
    991                   <td class="left">http</td>
    992                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    993                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.3" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;7.2</a>
    994                   </td>
    995                </tr>
    996                <tr>
    997                   <td class="left">If-Modified-Since</td>
    998                   <td class="left">http</td>
    999                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1000                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-modified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1" title="If-Modified-Since">Section&nbsp;7.3</a>
    1001                   </td>
    1002                </tr>
    1003                <tr>
    1004                   <td class="left">If-None-Match</td>
    1005                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1006                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1007                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.3" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;7.4</a>
    1008                   </td>
    1009                </tr>
    1010                <tr>
    1011                   <td class="left">If-Unmodified-Since</td>
    1012                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1013                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1014                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1" title="If-Unmodified-Since">Section&nbsp;7.5</a>
    1015                   </td>
    1016                </tr>
    1017                <tr>
    1018                   <td class="left">Last-Modified</td>
    1019                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1020                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1021                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.1" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;7.6</a>
    1022                   </td>
    1023                </tr>
    1024             </tbody>
    1025          </table>
    1026       </div>
    1027       <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
    1028       <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
    1029       <p id="rfc.section.9.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    1030       </p>
    1031       <h1 id="rfc.section.10"><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;<a id="ack" href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     992               For files, it may be just the file system last-modified time. For entities with dynamically included parts, it may be the
     993               most recent of the set of last-modify times for its component parts. For database gateways, it may be the last-update time
     994               stamp of the record. For virtual objects, it may be the last time the internal state changed.
     995            </p>
     996            <p id="rfc.section.7.6.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
     997               last modification would indicate some time in the future, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that date with the message origination date.
     998            </p>
     999            <p id="rfc.section.7.6.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.
     1000               This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the entity's modification time, especially if the entity changes
     1001               near the time that the response is generated.
     1002            </p>
     1003            <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.8">HTTP/1.1 servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified whenever feasible.
     1004            </p>
     1005            <p id="rfc.section.7.6.p.9">The Last-Modified entity-header field value is often used as a cache validator. In simple terms, a cache entry is considered
     1006               to be valid if the entity has not been modified since the Last-Modified value.
     1007            </p>
     1008         </div>
     1009      </div>
     1010      <div id="IANA.considerations">
     1011         <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
     1012         <div id="message.header.registration">
     1013            <h2 id="rfc.section.8.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#message.header.registration">Message Header Registration</a></h2>
     1014            <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.1">The Message Header Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html">http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html</a>&gt; should be updated with the permanent registrations below (see <a href="#RFC3864" id="rfc.xref.RFC3864.1"><cite title="Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields">[RFC3864]</cite></a>):
     1015            </p>
     1016            <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
     1017               <table class="tt full center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
     1018                  <thead>
     1019                     <tr>
     1020                        <th>Header Field Name</th>
     1021                        <th>Protocol</th>
     1022                        <th>Status</th>
     1023                        <th>Reference</th>
     1024                     </tr>
     1025                  </thead>
     1026                  <tbody>
     1027                     <tr>
     1028                        <td class="left">ETag</td>
     1029                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1030                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1031                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.2" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;7.1</a>
     1032                        </td>
     1033                     </tr>
     1034                     <tr>
     1035                        <td class="left">If-Match</td>
     1036                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1037                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1038                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.3" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;7.2</a>
     1039                        </td>
     1040                     </tr>
     1041                     <tr>
     1042                        <td class="left">If-Modified-Since</td>
     1043                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1044                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1045                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-modified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1" title="If-Modified-Since">Section&nbsp;7.3</a>
     1046                        </td>
     1047                     </tr>
     1048                     <tr>
     1049                        <td class="left">If-None-Match</td>
     1050                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1051                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1052                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.3" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;7.4</a>
     1053                        </td>
     1054                     </tr>
     1055                     <tr>
     1056                        <td class="left">If-Unmodified-Since</td>
     1057                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1058                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1059                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1" title="If-Unmodified-Since">Section&nbsp;7.5</a>
     1060                        </td>
     1061                     </tr>
     1062                     <tr>
     1063                        <td class="left">Last-Modified</td>
     1064                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1065                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1066                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.1" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;7.6</a>
     1067                        </td>
     1068                     </tr>
     1069                  </tbody>
     1070               </table>
     1071            </div>
     1072            <p id="rfc.section.8.1.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
     1073         </div>
     1074      </div>
     1075      <div id="security.considerations">
     1076         <h1 id="rfc.section.9"><a href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
     1077         <p id="rfc.section.9.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     1078         </p>
     1079      </div>
     1080      <div id="ack">
     1081         <h1 id="rfc.section.10"><a href="#rfc.section.10">10.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#ack">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     1082      </div>
    10321083      <h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.11" href="#rfc.section.11">11.</a> References
    10331084      </h1>
    10341085      <h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.11.1" id="rfc.section.11.1">11.1</a> Normative References
    10351086      </h2>
    1036       <table>       
     1087      <table>
    10371088         <tr>
    10381089            <td class="reference"><b id="Part1">[Part1]</b></td>
    1039             <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
     1090            <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
    10401091            </td>
    10411092         </tr>
    10421093         <tr>
    10431094            <td class="reference"><b id="Part5">[Part5]</b></td>
    1044             <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
     1095            <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
    10451096            </td>
    10461097         </tr>
    10471098         <tr>
    10481099            <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td>
    1049             <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
     1100            <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-03">HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-03 (work in progress), June&nbsp;2008.
    10501101            </td>
    10511102         </tr>
    10521103         <tr>
    10531104            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
    1054             <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.
     1105            <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.
    10551106            </td>
    10561107         </tr>
     
    10581109      <h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.11.2" id="rfc.section.11.2">11.2</a> Informative References
    10591110      </h2>
    1060       <table>     
     1111      <table>
    10611112         <tr>
    10621113            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2068">[RFC2068]</b></td>
    1063             <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.
     1114            <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.
    10641115            </td>
    10651116         </tr>
    10661117         <tr>
    10671118            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td>
    1068             <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.
     1119            <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.
    10691120            </td>
    10701121         </tr>
    10711122         <tr>
    10721123            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC3864">[RFC3864]</b></td>
    1073             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:GK-IETF@ninebynine.org" title="Nine by Nine">Klyne, G.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@pobox.com" title="BEA Systems">Nottingham, M.</a>, and <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="HP Labs">J. Mogul</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864">Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields</a>”, BCP&nbsp;90, RFC&nbsp;3864, September&nbsp;2004.
     1124            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:GK-IETF@ninebynine.org" title="Nine by Nine">Klyne, G.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@pobox.com" title="BEA Systems">Nottingham, M.</a>, and <a href="mailto:JeffMogul@acm.org" title="HP Labs">J. Mogul</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864">Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields</a>”, BCP&nbsp;90, RFC&nbsp;3864, September&nbsp;2004.
    10741125            </td>
    10751126         </tr>
    10761127      </table>
    1077       <div class="avoidbreak">
    1078          <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
    1079          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span>
    1080                (editor)
    1081                <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>
    1082          <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>
    1083          <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>
    1084          <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>
    1085          <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>
    1086          <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>
    1087          <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>
    1088          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Yves Lafon</span>
    1089                (editor)
    1090                <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>
    1091          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span>
    1092                (editor)
    1093                <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>
    1094       </div>
    1095       <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>
    1096       <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>
    1097       <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">Allow weak entity tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">5</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.4" title="If-None-Match">7.4</a>).
    1098       </p>
    1099       <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a id="change.log" href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
    1100       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
    1101       </h2>
    1102       <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>.
    1103       </p>
    1104       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00
    1105       </h2>
    1106       <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1107       <ul>
    1108          <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"
    1109          </li>
    1110       </ul>
    1111       <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p>
    1112       <ul>
    1113          <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes from Part2.</li>
    1114       </ul>
    1115       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01
    1116       </h2>
    1117       <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.1">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
    1118       </p>
    1119       <ul>
    1120          <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li>
    1121       </ul>
    1122       <h2 id="rfc.section.B.4"><a href="#rfc.section.B.4">B.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.02" href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02</a></h2>
    1123       <p id="rfc.section.B.4.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1124       <ul>
    1125          <li> &lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116</a>&gt;: "Weak ETags on non-GET requests"
    1126          </li>
    1127       </ul>
    1128       <p id="rfc.section.B.4.p.2">Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration (&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40</a>&gt;):
    1129       </p>
    1130       <ul>
    1131          <li>Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers defined in this document.</li>
    1132       </ul>
     1128      <div id="compatibility">
     1129         <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#compatibility">Compatibility with Previous Versions</a></h1>
     1130         <div id="changes.from.rfc.2616">
     1131            <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>
     1132            <p id="rfc.section.A.1.p.1">Allow weak entity tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak and Strong Validators">5</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.4" title="If-None-Match">7.4</a>).
     1133            </p>
     1134         </div>
     1135      </div>
     1136      <div id="change.log">
     1137         <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
     1138         <div>
     1139            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.1"><a href="#rfc.section.B.1">B.1</a>&nbsp;Since RFC2616
     1140            </h2>
     1141            <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>.
     1142            </p>
     1143         </div>
     1144         <div>
     1145            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.2"><a href="#rfc.section.B.2">B.2</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-00
     1146            </h2>
     1147            <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1148            <ul>
     1149               <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"
     1150               </li>
     1151            </ul>
     1152            <p id="rfc.section.B.2.p.2">Other changes: </p>
     1153            <ul>
     1154               <li>Move definitions of 304 and 412 condition codes from Part2.</li>
     1155            </ul>
     1156         </div>
     1157         <div>
     1158            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.3"><a href="#rfc.section.B.3">B.3</a>&nbsp;Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-01
     1159            </h2>
     1160            <p id="rfc.section.B.3.p.1">Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36</a>&gt;):
     1161            </p>
     1162            <ul>
     1163               <li>Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.</li>
     1164            </ul>
     1165         </div>
     1166         <div id="changes.since.02">
     1167            <h2 id="rfc.section.B.4"><a href="#rfc.section.B.4">B.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.02">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-02</a></h2>
     1168            <p id="rfc.section.B.4.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1169            <ul>
     1170               <li>&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116</a>&gt;: "Weak ETags on non-GET requests"
     1171               </li>
     1172            </ul>
     1173            <p id="rfc.section.B.4.p.2">Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration (&lt;<a href="http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40">http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40</a>&gt;):
     1174            </p>
     1175            <ul>
     1176               <li>Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers defined in this document.</li>
     1177            </ul>
     1178         </div>
     1179      </div>
    11331180      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    11341181      <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>
     
    11371184         <ul class="ind">
    11381185            <li><a id="rfc.index.3" href="#rfc.index.3"><b>3</b></a><ul>
    1139                   <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.3"><b>4.1</b></a></li>
     1186                  <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.3.1"><b>4.1</b></a></li>
    11401187               </ul>
    11411188            </li>
    11421189            <li><a id="rfc.index.4" href="#rfc.index.4"><b>4</b></a><ul>
    1143                   <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.4"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
     1190                  <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.4.1"><b>4.2</b></a></li>
    11441191               </ul>
    11451192            </li>
     
    12281275         </ul>
    12291276      </div>
    1230       <h1><a id="rfc.copyright" href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
    1231       <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
    1232       <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
    1233          authors retain all their rights.
    1234       </p>
    1235       <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
    1236          HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
    1237          DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
    1238          WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    1239       </p>
    1240       <h1><a id="rfc.ipr" href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
    1241       <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
    1242          be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
    1243          license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
    1244          identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
    1245          BCP 79.
    1246       </p>
    1247       <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
    1248          of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
    1249          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>.
    1250       </p>
    1251       <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
    1252          rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
    1253          at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
    1254       </p>
     1277      <div class="avoidbreak">
     1278         <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
     1279         <p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b>
     1280            (editor)
     1281            <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>
     1282         <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>
     1283         <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>
     1284         <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>
     1285         <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>
     1286         <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>
     1287         <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>
     1288         <p><b>Yves Lafon</b>
     1289            (editor)
     1290            <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>
     1291         <p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b>
     1292            (editor)
     1293            <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>
     1294      </div>
     1295      <div id="rfc.copyright">
     1296         <h1><a href="#rfc.copyright">Full Copyright Statement</a></h1>
     1297         <p>Copyright © The IETF Trust (2008).</p>
     1298         <p>This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the
     1299            authors retain all their rights.
     1300         </p>
     1301         <p>This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
     1302            HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
     1303            DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
     1304            WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
     1305         </p>
     1306      </div>
     1307      <div id="rfc.ipr">
     1308         <h1><a href="#rfc.ipr">Intellectual Property</a></h1>
     1309         <p>The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might
     1310            be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any
     1311            license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
     1312            identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and
     1313            BCP 79.
     1314         </p>
     1315         <p>Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result
     1316            of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users
     1317            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>.
     1318         </p>
     1319         <p>The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
     1320            rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
     1321            at <a href="mailto:ietf-ipr@ietf.org">ietf-ipr@ietf.org</a>.
     1322         </p>
     1323      </div>
    12551324   </body>
    12561325</html>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.