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/21/p4-conditional.html

    r1929 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>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests</title><script>
    77var buttonsAdded = false;
    88
    9 function init() {
     9function initFeedback() {
    1010  var fb = document.createElement("div");
    1111  fb.className = "feedback noprint";
     
    2222  toggleButtonsToElementsByName("h3");
    2323  toggleButtonsToElementsByName("h4");
    24  
     24
    2525  buttonsAdded = !buttonsAdded;
    2626}
     
    3535function toggleButton(node) {
    3636  if (! buttonsAdded) {
    37  
     37
    3838    // docname
    3939    var template = "mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org?subject={docname},%20%22{section}%22&body=<{ref}>:";
     
    5858      ref += "#" + id;
    5959    }
    60    
     60
    6161    // docname
    6262    var docname = "draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-21";
     
    6565    var section = node.textContent;
    6666    section = section.replace("\u00a0", " ");
    67    
     67
    6868    // build URI from template
    6969    var uri = template.replace("{docname}", encodeURIComponent(docname));
    7070    uri = uri.replace("{section}", encodeURIComponent(section));
    7171    uri = uri.replace("{ref}", encodeURIComponent(ref));
    72  
     72
    7373    var button = document.createElement("a");
    7474    button.className = "fbbutton noprint";
     
    106106body {
    107107  color: black;
    108   font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
    109   font-size: 10pt;
     108  font-family: cambria, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     109  font-size: 11pt;
    110110  margin-right: 2em;
    111111}
     
    132132}
    133133h1 {
    134   font-size: 14pt;
     134  font-size: 130%;
    135135  line-height: 21pt;
    136136  page-break-after: avoid;
     
    139139  page-break-before: always;
    140140}
    141 h1 a {
    142   color: #333333;
    143 }
    144141h2 {
    145   font-size: 12pt;
     142  font-size: 120%;
    146143  line-height: 15pt;
    147144  page-break-after: avoid;
    148145}
    149 h3, h4, h5, h6 {
    150   font-size: 10pt;
     146h3 {
     147  font-size: 110%;
    151148  page-break-after: avoid;
    152149}
    153 h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
     150h4, h5, h6 {
     151  page-break-after: avoid;
     152}
     153h1 a, h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
    154154  color: black;
    155155}
     
    208208table.tt {
    209209  vertical-align: top;
     210  border-color: gray;
     211}
     212table.tt th {
     213  border-color: gray;
     214}
     215table.tt td {
     216  border-color: gray;
     217}
     218table.all {
     219  border-style: solid;
     220  border-width: 2px;
    210221}
    211222table.full {
    212   border-style: outset;
    213   border-width: 1px;
    214 }
    215 table.headers {
    216   border-style: outset;
    217   border-width: 1px;
     223  border-style: solid;
     224  border-width: 2px;
    218225}
    219226table.tt td {
    220227  vertical-align: top;
    221228}
     229table.all td {
     230  border-style: solid;
     231  border-width: 1px;
     232}
    222233table.full td {
    223   border-style: inset;
     234  border-style: none solid;
    224235  border-width: 1px;
    225236}
     
    227238  vertical-align: top;
    228239}
     240table.all th {
     241  border-style: solid;
     242  border-width: 1px;
     243}
    229244table.full th {
    230   border-style: inset;
    231   border-width: 1px;
     245  border-style: solid;
     246  border-width: 1px 1px 2px 1px;
    232247}
    233248table.headers th {
    234   border-style: none none inset none;
    235   border-width: 1px;
     249  border-style: none none solid none;
     250  border-width: 2px;
    236251}
    237252table.left {
     
    248263  caption-side: bottom;
    249264  font-weight: bold;
    250   font-size: 9pt;
     265  font-size: 10pt;
    251266  margin-top: .5em;
    252267}
     
    255270  border-spacing: 1px;
    256271  width: 95%;
    257   font-size: 10pt;
     272  font-size: 11pt;
    258273  color: white;
    259274}
     
    263278td.topnowrap {
    264279  vertical-align: top;
    265   white-space: nowrap; 
     280  white-space: nowrap;
    266281}
    267282table.header td {
     
    288303  line-height: 150%;
    289304  font-weight: bold;
    290   font-size: 10pt;
    291305  margin-left: 0em;
    292306}
     
    294308  line-height: normal;
    295309  font-weight: normal;
    296   font-size: 9pt;
     310  font-size: 10pt;
    297311  margin-left: 0em;
    298312}
     
    302316ul p {
    303317  margin-left: 0em;
     318}
     319.title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 {
     320  font-family: candara, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
     321}
     322samp, tt, code, pre {
     323  font: consolas, monospace;
    304324}
    305325ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
     
    341361  font-weight: bold;
    342362  text-align: center;
    343   font-size: 9pt;
     363  font-size: 10pt;
    344364}
    345365.filename {
    346366  color: #333333;
     367  font-size: 75%;
    347368  font-weight: bold;
    348   font-size: 12pt;
    349369  line-height: 21pt;
    350370  text-align: center;
     
    353373  font-weight: bold;
    354374}
    355 .hidden {
    356   display: none;
    357 }
    358375.left {
    359376  text-align: left;
     
    363380}
    364381.title {
    365   color: #990000;
    366   font-size: 18pt;
     382  color: green;
     383  font-size: 150%;
    367384  line-height: 18pt;
    368385  font-weight: bold;
     
    370387  margin-top: 36pt;
    371388}
    372 .vcardline {
    373   display: block;
    374 }
    375389.warning {
    376   font-size: 14pt;
     390  font-size: 130%;
    377391  background-color: yellow;
    378392}
     
    402416    display: none;
    403417  }
    404  
     418
    405419  a {
    406420    color: black;
     
    417431    background-color: white;
    418432    vertical-align: top;
    419     font-size: 12pt;
     433    font-size: 110%;
    420434  }
    421435
     
    423437    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
    424438  }
    425  
     439
    426440  ul.ind li li a {
    427441    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
    428442  }
    429  
     443
    430444  .print2col {
    431445    column-count: 2;
     
    437451@page {
    438452  @top-left {
    439        content: "Internet-Draft"; 
    440   } 
     453       content: "Internet-Draft";
     454  }
    441455  @top-right {
    442        content: "October 2012"; 
    443   } 
     456       content: "October 2012";
     457  }
    444458  @top-center {
    445        content: "HTTP/1.1 Conditional Requests"; 
    446   } 
     459       content: "HTTP/1.1 Conditional Requests";
     460  }
    447461  @bottom-left {
    448        content: "Fielding & Reschke"; 
    449   } 
     462       content: "Fielding & Reschke";
     463  }
    450464  @bottom-center {
    451        content: "Expires April 7, 2013"; 
    452   } 
     465       content: "Expires April 7, 2013";
     466  }
    453467  @bottom-right {
    454        content: "[Page " counter(page) "]"; 
    455   } 
    456 }
    457 
    458 @page:first { 
     468       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
     469  }
     470}
     471
     472@page:first {
    459473    @top-left {
    460474      content: normal;
     
    486500      <link href="p2-semantics.html" rel="prev">
    487501      <link href="p5-range.html" rel="next">
    488       <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.588, 2012-08-25 12:28:24, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
     502      <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/">
    489503      <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
    490504      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R.">
     
    496510      <meta name="description" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information systems. This document defines HTTP/1.1 conditional requests, including metadata header fields for indicating state changes, request header fields for making preconditions on such state, and rules for constructing the responses to a conditional request when one or more preconditions evaluate to false.">
    497511   </head>
    498    <body onload="init();">
     512   <body onload="initFeedback();">
    499513      <table class="header">
    500514         <tbody>
     
    508522            </tr>
    509523            <tr>
    510                <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
     524               <td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    511525               </td>
    512526               <td class="right">J. Reschke, Editor</td>
     
    523537      </table>
    524538      <p class="title">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests<br><span class="filename">draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-21</span></p>
    525       <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1> 
     539      <h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1>
    526540      <p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypertext information
    527541         systems. This document defines HTTP/1.1 conditional requests, including metadata header fields for indicating state changes,
    528542         request header fields for making preconditions on such state, and rules for constructing the responses to a conditional request
    529543         when one or more preconditions evaluate to false.
    530       </p> 
    531       <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1> 
     544      </p>
     545      <h1 id="rfc.note.1"><a href="#rfc.note.1">Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)</a></h1>
    532546      <p>Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at &lt;<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/</a>&gt;.
    533       </p> 
     547      </p>
    534548      <p>The current issues list is at &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3</a>&gt; and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>&gt;.
    535       </p> 
     549      </p>
    536550      <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.20" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-20">Appendix&nbsp;D.2</a>.
    537       </p>
    538       <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1>
    539       <p>This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
    540       <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
    541          working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at <a href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/</a>.
    542551      </p>
    543       <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
    544          documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
    545          in progress”.
    546       </p>
    547       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2013.</p>
    548       <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    549       <p>Copyright © 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
    550       <p>This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
    551          and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
    552          text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified
    553          BSD License.
    554       </p>
    555       <p>This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November
    556          10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to
    557          allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
    558          controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
    559          works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate
    560          it into languages other than English.
    561       </p>
     552      <div id="rfc.status">
     553         <h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1>
     554         <p>This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
     555         <p>Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
     556            working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at <a href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/</a>.
     557         </p>
     558         <p>Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     559            documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work
     560            in progress”.
     561         </p>
     562         <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2013.</p>
     563      </div>
     564      <div id="rfc.copyrightnotice">
     565         <h1><a href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
     566         <p>Copyright © 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
     567         <p>This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
     568            and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License
     569            text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified
     570            BSD License.
     571         </p>
     572         <p>This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November
     573            10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to
     574            allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
     575            controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
     576            works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate
     577            it into languages other than English.
     578         </p>
     579      </div>
    562580      <hr class="noprint">
    563581      <h1 class="np" id="rfc.toc"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1>
     
    610628            </ul>
    611629         </li>
    612          <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    613630         <li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></li>
    614631         <li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#imported.abnf">Imported ABNF</a></li>
     
    620637         </li>
    621638         <li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li>
     639         <li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li>
    622640      </ul>
    623       <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a id="introduction" href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
    624       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">Conditional requests are HTTP requests <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a> that include one or more header fields indicating a precondition to be tested before applying the method semantics to the
    625          target resource. Each precondition is based on metadata that is expected to change if the selected representation of the target
    626          resource is changed. This document defines the HTTP/1.1 conditional request mechanisms in terms of the architecture, syntax
    627          notation, and conformance criteria defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    628       </p>
    629       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">Conditional GET requests are the most efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. Conditionals can also be applied to state-changing methods, such as PUT and DELETE, to prevent the "lost update" problem:
    630          one client accidentally overwriting the work of another client that has been acting in parallel.
    631       </p>
    632       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.3">Conditional request preconditions are based on the state of the target resource as a whole (its current value set) or the
    633          state as observed in a previously obtained representation (one value in that set). A resource might have multiple current
    634          representations, each with its own observable state. The conditional request mechanisms assume that the mapping of requests
    635          to corresponding representations will be consistent over time if the server intends to take advantage of conditionals. Regardless,
    636          if the mapping is inconsistent and the server is unable to select the appropriate representation, then no harm will result
    637          when the precondition evaluates to false.
    638       </p>
    639       <p id="rfc.section.1.p.4"><span id="rfc.iref.s.1"></span> We use the term "<dfn>selected representation</dfn>" to refer to the current representation of the target resource that would have been selected in a successful response if
    640          the same request had used the method GET and had excluded all of the conditional request header fields. The conditional request
    641          preconditions are evaluated by comparing the values provided in the request header fields to the current metadata for the
    642          selected representation.
    643       </p>
    644       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="conformance" href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></h2>
    645       <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"
    646          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>.
    647       </p>
    648       <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#conformance" title="Conformance and Error Handling">Section 2.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    649       </p>
    650       <h2 id="rfc.section.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2>
    651       <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.1">This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.1"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a> with the list rule extension defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation" title="Syntax Notation">Section 1.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>. <a href="#imported.abnf" title="Imported ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;B</a> describes rules imported from other documents. <a href="#collected.abnf" title="Collected ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;C</a> shows the collected ABNF with the list rule expanded.
    652       </p>
    653       <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div>
    654       <div id="rfc.iref.v.1"></div>
    655       <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a id="validators" href="#validators">Validators</a></h1>
    656       <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification defines two forms of metadata that are commonly used to observe resource state and test for preconditions:
    657          modification dates (<a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.1" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>) and opaque entity tags (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>). Additional metadata that reflects resource state has been defined by various extensions of HTTP, such as WebDAV <a href="#RFC4918" id="rfc.xref.RFC4918.1"><cite title="HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)">[RFC4918]</cite></a>, that are beyond the scope of this specification. A resource metadata value is referred to as a "<dfn>validator</dfn>" when it is used within a precondition.
    658       </p>
    659       <div id="rfc.iref.v.2"></div>
    660       <div id="rfc.iref.v.3"></div>
    661       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="weak.and.strong.validators" href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak versus Strong</a></h2>
    662       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">Validators come in two flavors: strong or weak. Weak validators are easy to generate but are far less useful for comparisons.
    663          Strong validators are ideal for comparisons but can be very difficult (and occasionally impossible) to generate efficiently.
    664          Rather than impose that all forms of resource adhere to the same strength of validator, HTTP exposes the type of validator
    665          in use and imposes restrictions on when weak validators can be used as preconditions.
    666       </p>
    667       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.2">A "strong validator" is a representation metadata value that <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be changed to a new, previously unused or guaranteed unique, value whenever a change occurs to the representation data such
    668          that a change would be observable in the payload body of a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> response to GET.
    669       </p>
    670       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be changed for other reasons, such as when a semantically significant part of the representation metadata is changed (e.g., <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type</a>), but it is in the best interests of the origin server to only change the value when it is necessary to invalidate the stored
    671          responses held by remote caches and authoring tools. A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all representations of a given resource, such that no two representations of that resource share the same
    672          validator unless their payload body would be identical.
    673       </p>
    674       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.4">Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times. Thus, a cache might attempt to validate
    675          an entry using a validator that it obtained in the distant past. A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all representations associated with a particular resource over time. However, there is no
    676          implication of uniqueness across representations of different resources (i.e., the same strong validator might be in use for
    677          representations of multiple resources at the same time and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
    678       </p>
    679       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">There are a variety of strong validators used in practice. The best are based on strict revision control, wherein each change
    680          to a representation always results in a unique node name and revision identifier being assigned before the representation
    681          is made accessible to GET. A collision-resistant hash function applied to the representation data is also sufficient if the
    682          data is available prior to the response header fields being sent and the digest does not need to be recalculated every time
    683          a validation request is received. However, if a resource has distinct representations that differ only in their metadata,
    684          such as might occur with content negotiation over media types that happen to share the same data format, then the origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> incorporate additional information in the validator to distinguish those representations and avoid confusing cache behavior.
    685       </p>
    686       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.6">In contrast, a "weak validator" is a representation metadata value that might not be changed for every change to the representation
    687          data. This weakness might be due to limitations in how the value is calculated, such as clock resolution or an inability to
    688          ensure uniqueness for all possible representations of the resource, or due to a desire by the resource owner to group representations
    689          by some self-determined set of equivalency rather than unique sequences of data. An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change a weak entity-tag whenever it considers prior representations to be unacceptable as a substitute for the current representation.
    690          In other words, a weak entity-tag ought to change whenever the origin server wants caches to invalidate old responses.
    691       </p>
    692       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7">For example, the representation of a weather report that changes in content every second, based on dynamic measurements, might
    693          be grouped into sets of equivalent representations (from the origin server's perspective) with the same weak validator in
    694          order to allow cached representations to be valid for a reasonable period of time (perhaps adjusted dynamically based on server
    695          load or weather quality). Likewise, a representation's modification time, if defined with only one-second resolution, might
    696          be a weak validator if it is possible for the representation to be modified twice during a single second and retrieved between
    697          those modifications.
    698       </p>
    699       <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.8">A "use" of a validator occurs when either a client generates a request and includes the validator in a precondition or when
    700          a server compares two validators. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of a representation's
    701          payload body. Strong validators are usable and preferred for all conditional requests, including cache validation, partial
    702          content ranges, and "lost update" avoidance.
    703       </p>
    704       <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
    705       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.last-modified" href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
    706       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1">The "Last-Modified" header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the selected representation
    707          was last modified.
    708       </p>
    709       <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     641      <div id="introduction">
     642         <h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1>
     643         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.1">Conditional requests are HTTP requests <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a> that include one or more header fields indicating a precondition to be tested before applying the method semantics to the
     644            target resource. Each precondition is based on metadata that is expected to change if the selected representation of the target
     645            resource is changed. This document defines the HTTP/1.1 conditional request mechanisms in terms of the architecture, syntax
     646            notation, and conformance criteria defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     647         </p>
     648         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.2">Conditional GET requests are the most efficient mechanism for HTTP cache updates <a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>. Conditionals can also be applied to state-changing methods, such as PUT and DELETE, to prevent the "lost update" problem:
     649            one client accidentally overwriting the work of another client that has been acting in parallel.
     650         </p>
     651         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.3">Conditional request preconditions are based on the state of the target resource as a whole (its current value set) or the
     652            state as observed in a previously obtained representation (one value in that set). A resource might have multiple current
     653            representations, each with its own observable state. The conditional request mechanisms assume that the mapping of requests
     654            to corresponding representations will be consistent over time if the server intends to take advantage of conditionals. Regardless,
     655            if the mapping is inconsistent and the server is unable to select the appropriate representation, then no harm will result
     656            when the precondition evaluates to false.
     657         </p>
     658         <p id="rfc.section.1.p.4"><span id="rfc.iref.s.1"></span> We use the term "<dfn>selected representation</dfn>" to refer to the current representation of the target resource that would have been selected in a successful response if
     659            the same request had used the method GET and had excluded all of the conditional request header fields. The conditional request
     660            preconditions are evaluated by comparing the values provided in the request header fields to the current metadata for the
     661            selected representation.
     662         </p>
     663         <div id="conformance">
     664            <h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></h2>
     665            <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"
     666               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>.
     667            </p>
     668            <p id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2">Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#conformance" title="Conformance and Error Handling">Section 2.5</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     669            </p>
     670         </div>
     671         <div id="notation">
     672            <h2 id="rfc.section.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2>
     673            <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.1">This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.1"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a> with the list rule extension defined in <a href="p1-messaging.html#notation" title="Syntax Notation">Section 1.2</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>. <a href="#imported.abnf" title="Imported ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;B</a> describes rules imported from other documents. <a href="#collected.abnf" title="Collected ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;C</a> shows the collected ABNF with the list rule expanded.
     674            </p>
     675         </div>
     676      </div>
     677      <div id="validators">
     678         <div id="rfc.iref.m.1"></div>
     679         <div id="rfc.iref.v.1"></div>
     680         <h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#validators">Validators</a></h1>
     681         <p id="rfc.section.2.p.1">This specification defines two forms of metadata that are commonly used to observe resource state and test for preconditions:
     682            modification dates (<a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.1" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>) and opaque entity tags (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.1" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>). Additional metadata that reflects resource state has been defined by various extensions of HTTP, such as WebDAV <a href="#RFC4918" id="rfc.xref.RFC4918.1"><cite title="HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)">[RFC4918]</cite></a>, that are beyond the scope of this specification. A resource metadata value is referred to as a "<dfn>validator</dfn>" when it is used within a precondition.
     683         </p>
     684         <div id="weak.and.strong.validators">
     685            <div id="rfc.iref.v.2"></div>
     686            <div id="rfc.iref.v.3"></div>
     687            <h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators">Weak versus Strong</a></h2>
     688            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1">Validators come in two flavors: strong or weak. Weak validators are easy to generate but are far less useful for comparisons.
     689               Strong validators are ideal for comparisons but can be very difficult (and occasionally impossible) to generate efficiently.
     690               Rather than impose that all forms of resource adhere to the same strength of validator, HTTP exposes the type of validator
     691               in use and imposes restrictions on when weak validators can be used as preconditions.
     692            </p>
     693            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.2">A "strong validator" is a representation metadata value that <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be changed to a new, previously unused or guaranteed unique, value whenever a change occurs to the representation data such
     694               that a change would be observable in the payload body of a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> response to GET.
     695            </p>
     696            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3">A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be changed for other reasons, such as when a semantically significant part of the representation metadata is changed (e.g., <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.content-type" class="smpl">Content-Type</a>), but it is in the best interests of the origin server to only change the value when it is necessary to invalidate the stored
     697               responses held by remote caches and authoring tools. A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all representations of a given resource, such that no two representations of that resource share the same
     698               validator unless their payload body would be identical.
     699            </p>
     700            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.4">Cache entries might persist for arbitrarily long periods, regardless of expiration times. Thus, a cache might attempt to validate
     701               an entry using a validator that it obtained in the distant past. A strong validator <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be unique across all versions of all representations associated with a particular resource over time. However, there is no
     702               implication of uniqueness across representations of different resources (i.e., the same strong validator might be in use for
     703               representations of multiple resources at the same time and does not imply that those representations are equivalent).
     704            </p>
     705            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5">There are a variety of strong validators used in practice. The best are based on strict revision control, wherein each change
     706               to a representation always results in a unique node name and revision identifier being assigned before the representation
     707               is made accessible to GET. A collision-resistant hash function applied to the representation data is also sufficient if the
     708               data is available prior to the response header fields being sent and the digest does not need to be recalculated every time
     709               a validation request is received. However, if a resource has distinct representations that differ only in their metadata,
     710               such as might occur with content negotiation over media types that happen to share the same data format, then the origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> incorporate additional information in the validator to distinguish those representations and avoid confusing cache behavior.
     711            </p>
     712            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.6">In contrast, a "weak validator" is a representation metadata value that might not be changed for every change to the representation
     713               data. This weakness might be due to limitations in how the value is calculated, such as clock resolution or an inability to
     714               ensure uniqueness for all possible representations of the resource, or due to a desire by the resource owner to group representations
     715               by some self-determined set of equivalency rather than unique sequences of data. An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> change a weak entity-tag whenever it considers prior representations to be unacceptable as a substitute for the current representation.
     716               In other words, a weak entity-tag ought to change whenever the origin server wants caches to invalidate old responses.
     717            </p>
     718            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7">For example, the representation of a weather report that changes in content every second, based on dynamic measurements, might
     719               be grouped into sets of equivalent representations (from the origin server's perspective) with the same weak validator in
     720               order to allow cached representations to be valid for a reasonable period of time (perhaps adjusted dynamically based on server
     721               load or weather quality). Likewise, a representation's modification time, if defined with only one-second resolution, might
     722               be a weak validator if it is possible for the representation to be modified twice during a single second and retrieved between
     723               those modifications.
     724            </p>
     725            <p id="rfc.section.2.1.p.8">A "use" of a validator occurs when either a client generates a request and includes the validator in a precondition or when
     726               a server compares two validators. Weak validators are only usable in contexts that do not depend on exact equality of a representation's
     727               payload body. Strong validators are usable and preferred for all conditional requests, including cache validation, partial
     728               content ranges, and "lost update" avoidance.
     729            </p>
     730         </div>
     731         <div id="header.last-modified">
     732            <div id="rfc.iref.l.1"></div>
     733            <h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.last-modified">Last-Modified</a></h2>
     734            <p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1">The "Last-Modified" header field indicates the date and time at which the origin server believes the selected representation
     735               was last modified.
     736            </p>
     737            <div id="rfc.figure.u.1"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span>  <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    710738</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3">An example of its use is</p>
    711       <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="text">  Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
    712 </pre><h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="lastmod.generation" href="#lastmod.generation">Generation</a></h3>
    713       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified for any selected representation for which a last modification date can be reasonably and consistently determined,
    714          since its use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) results in a substantial reduction of HTTP traffic on the Internet and can be a significant factor in improving service
    715          scalability and reliability.
    716       </p>
    717       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">A representation is typically the sum of many parts behind the resource interface. The last-modified time would usually be
    718          the most recent time that any of those parts were changed. How that value is determined for any given resource is an implementation
    719          detail beyond the scope of this specification. What matters to HTTP is how recipients of the Last-Modified header field can
    720          use its value to make conditional requests and test the validity of locally cached responses.
    721       </p>
    722       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.3">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the representation as close as possible to the time that it generates the <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> field value for its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the representation's modification
    723          time, especially if the representation changes near the time that the response is generated.
    724       </p>
    725       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.4">An origin server with a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a Last-Modified date that is later than the server's time of message origination (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a>). If the last modification time is derived from implementation-specific metadata that evaluates to some time in the future,
    726          according to the origin server's clock, then the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that value with the message origination date. This prevents a future modification date from having an adverse impact
    727          on cache validation.
    728       </p>
    729       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.5">An origin server without a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> assign Last-Modified values to a response unless these values were associated with the resource by some other system or user
    730          with a reliable clock.
    731       </p>
    732       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.2">2.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="lastmod.comparison" href="#lastmod.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
    733       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.1">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
    734          strong, using the following rules:
    735       </p>
    736       <ul>
    737          <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the representation and,</li>
    738          <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did not change twice during the second covered by the
    739             presented validator.
    740          </li>
    741       </ul>
    742       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.2">or </p>
    743       <ul>
    744          <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a>, <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> header field, because the client has a cache entry, or <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> for the associated representation, and
    745          </li>
    746          <li>That cache entry includes a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and
    747          </li>
    748          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    749       </ul>
    750       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.3">or </p>
    751       <ul>
    752          <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the representation,
    753             and
    754          </li>
    755          <li>That cache entry includes a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and
    756          </li>
    757          <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
    758       </ul>
    759       <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.4">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
    760          both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified
    761          values are generated from 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.
    762       </p>
    763       <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
    764       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3">2.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.etag" href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
    765       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.1">The "ETag" header field provides the current entity-tag for the selected representation. An entity-tag is an opaque validator
    766          for differentiating between multiple representations of the same resource, regardless of whether those multiple representations
    767          are due to resource state changes over time, content negotiation resulting in multiple representations being valid at the
    768          same time, or both. An entity-tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
    769       </p>
    770       <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>       = <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     739            <div id="rfc.figure.u.2"></div><pre class="text">  Last-Modified: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:45:26 GMT
     740</pre><div id="lastmod.generation">
     741               <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.1">2.2.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#lastmod.generation">Generation</a></h3>
     742               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.1">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send Last-Modified for any selected representation for which a last modification date can be reasonably and consistently determined,
     743                  since its use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) results in a substantial reduction of HTTP traffic on the Internet and can be a significant factor in improving service
     744                  scalability and reliability.
     745               </p>
     746               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.2">A representation is typically the sum of many parts behind the resource interface. The last-modified time would usually be
     747                  the most recent time that any of those parts were changed. How that value is determined for any given resource is an implementation
     748                  detail beyond the scope of this specification. What matters to HTTP is how recipients of the Last-Modified header field can
     749                  use its value to make conditional requests and test the validity of locally cached responses.
     750               </p>
     751               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.3">An origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> obtain the Last-Modified value of the representation as close as possible to the time that it generates the <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> field value for its response. This allows a recipient to make an accurate assessment of the representation's modification
     752                  time, especially if the representation changes near the time that the response is generated.
     753               </p>
     754               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.4">An origin server with a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send a Last-Modified date that is later than the server's time of message origination (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a>). If the last modification time is derived from implementation-specific metadata that evaluates to some time in the future,
     755                  according to the origin server's clock, then the origin server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> replace that value with the message origination date. This prevents a future modification date from having an adverse impact
     756                  on cache validation.
     757               </p>
     758               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.1.p.5">An origin server without a clock <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> assign Last-Modified values to a response unless these values were associated with the resource by some other system or user
     759                  with a reliable clock.
     760               </p>
     761            </div>
     762            <div id="lastmod.comparison">
     763               <h3 id="rfc.section.2.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2.2">2.2.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#lastmod.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
     764               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.1">A Last-Modified time, when used as a validator in a request, is implicitly weak unless it is possible to deduce that it is
     765                  strong, using the following rules:
     766               </p>
     767               <ul>
     768                  <li>The validator is being compared by an origin server to the actual current validator for the representation and,</li>
     769                  <li>That origin server reliably knows that the associated representation did not change twice during the second covered by the
     770                     presented validator.
     771                  </li>
     772               </ul>
     773               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.2">or </p>
     774               <ul>
     775                  <li>The validator is about to be used by a client in an <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a>, <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> header field, because the client has a cache entry, or <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> for the associated representation, and
     776                  </li>
     777                  <li>That cache entry includes a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and
     778                  </li>
     779                  <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     780               </ul>
     781               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.3">or </p>
     782               <ul>
     783                  <li>The validator is being compared by an intermediate cache to the validator stored in its cache entry for the representation,
     784                     and
     785                  </li>
     786                  <li>That cache entry includes a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value, which gives the time when the origin server sent the original response, and
     787                  </li>
     788                  <li>The presented Last-Modified time is at least 60 seconds before the Date value.</li>
     789               </ul>
     790               <p id="rfc.section.2.2.2.p.4">This method relies on the fact that if two different responses were sent by the origin server during the same second, but
     791                  both had the same Last-Modified time, then at least one of those responses would have a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> value equal to its Last-Modified time. The arbitrary 60-second limit guards against the possibility that the Date and Last-Modified
     792                  values are generated from 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.
     793               </p>
     794            </div>
     795         </div>
     796         <div id="header.etag">
     797            <div id="rfc.iref.e.1"></div>
     798            <h2 id="rfc.section.2.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3">2.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.etag">ETag</a></h2>
     799            <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.1">The "ETag" header field provides the current entity-tag for the selected representation. An entity-tag is an opaque validator
     800               for differentiating between multiple representations of the same resource, regardless of whether those multiple representations
     801               are due to resource state changes over time, content negotiation resulting in multiple representations being valid at the
     802               same time, or both. An entity-tag consists of an opaque quoted string, possibly prefixed by a weakness indicator.
     803            </p>
     804            <div id="rfc.figure.u.3"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>       = <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    771805
    772806  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a> = [ <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">weak</a> ] <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">opaque-tag</a>
     
    775809  <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">etagc</a>      = %x21 / %x23-7E / <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">obs-text</a>
    776810             ; <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">VCHAR</a> except double quotes, plus obs-text
    777 </pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.3.p.3"> 
    778          <p> <b>Note:</b> Previously, opaque-tag was defined to be a quoted-string (<a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.11">Section 3.11</a>), thus some recipients might perform backslash unescaping. Servers therefore ought to avoid backslash characters in entity
    779             tags.
    780          </p>
    781       </div>
    782       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.4">An entity-tag can be more reliable for validation than a modification date in situations where it is inconvenient to store
    783          modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient, or where modification dates are
    784          not consistently maintained.
    785       </p>
    786       <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div>
    787       <p>Examples:</p>  <pre class="text">  ETag: "xyzzy"
     811</pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.3.p.3">
     812               <p><b>Note:</b> Previously, opaque-tag was defined to be a quoted-string (<a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.11">Section 3.11</a>), thus some recipients might perform backslash unescaping. Servers therefore ought to avoid backslash characters in entity
     813                  tags.
     814               </p>
     815            </div>
     816            <p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.4">An entity-tag can be more reliable for validation than a modification date in situations where it is inconvenient to store
     817               modification dates, where the one-second resolution of HTTP date values is not sufficient, or where modification dates are
     818               not consistently maintained.
     819            </p>
     820            <div id="rfc.figure.u.4"></div>
     821            <p>Examples:</p><pre class="text">  ETag: "xyzzy"
    788822  ETag: W/"xyzzy"
    789823  ETag: ""
    790824</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.3.p.6">An entity-tag can be either a weak or strong validator, with strong being the default. If an origin server provides an entity-tag
    791          for a representation and the generation of that entity-tag does not satisfy the requirements for a strong validator (<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">Section&nbsp;2.1</a>), then that entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be marked as weak by prefixing its opaque value with "W/" (case-sensitive).
    792       </p>
    793       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.1">2.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tag.generation" href="#entity.tag.generation">Generation</a></h3>
    794       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.1">The principle behind entity-tags is that only the service author knows the implementation of a resource well enough to select
    795          the most accurate and efficient validation mechanism for that resource, and that any such mechanism can be mapped to a simple
    796          sequence of octets for easy comparison. Since the value is opaque, there is no need for the client to be aware of how each
    797          entity-tag is constructed.
    798       </p>
    799       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.2">For example, a resource that has implementation-specific versioning applied to all changes might use an internal revision
    800          number, perhaps combined with a variance identifier for content negotiation, to accurately differentiate between representations.
    801          Other implementations might use a collision-resistant hash of representation content, a combination of various filesystem
    802          attributes, or a modification timestamp that has sub-second resolution.
    803       </p>
    804       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.3">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send ETag for any selected representation for which detection of changes can be reasonably and consistently determined, since
    805          the entity-tag's use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) can result in a substantial reduction of HTTP network traffic and can be a significant factor in improving service scalability
    806          and reliability.
    807       </p>
    808       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.2">2.3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="entity.tag.comparison" href="#entity.tag.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
    809       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.2.p.1">There are two entity-tag comparison functions, depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators
    810          or not:
    811       </p>
    812       <ul>
    813          <li>The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical character-by-character, and both <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be weak.
    814          </li>
    815          <li>The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical character-by-character, but either or both of them <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be tagged as "weak" without affecting the result.
    816          </li>
    817       </ul>
    818       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.2.p.2">The example below shows the results for a set of entity-tag pairs, and both the weak and strong comparison function results:</p>
    819       <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
    820          <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    821             <thead>
    822                <tr>
    823                   <th>ETag 1</th>
    824                   <th>ETag 2</th>
    825                   <th>Strong Comparison</th>
    826                   <th>Weak Comparison</th>
    827                </tr>
    828             </thead>
    829             <tbody>
    830                <tr>
    831                   <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
    832                   <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
    833                   <td class="left">no match</td>
    834                   <td class="left">match</td>
    835                </tr>
    836                <tr>
    837                   <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
    838                   <td class="left">W/"2"</td>
    839                   <td class="left">no match</td>
    840                   <td class="left">no match</td>
    841                </tr>
    842                <tr>
    843                   <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
    844                   <td class="left">"1"</td>
    845                   <td class="left">no match</td>
    846                   <td class="left">match</td>
    847                </tr>
    848                <tr>
    849                   <td class="left">"1"</td>
    850                   <td class="left">"1"</td>
    851                   <td class="left">match</td>
    852                   <td class="left">match</td>
    853                </tr>
    854             </tbody>
    855          </table>
    856       </div>
    857       <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.3">2.3.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg" href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></h3>
    858       <p id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.1">Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (<a href="p2-semantics.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 3.4</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>), and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on the <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding</a> request header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.accept-encoding" title="Accept-Encoding">Section 6.3.4</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>):
    859       </p>
    860       <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div>
    861       <p>&gt;&gt; Request:</p><pre class="text2">GET /index HTTP/1.1
     825               for a representation and the generation of that entity-tag does not satisfy the requirements for a strong validator (<a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">Section&nbsp;2.1</a>), then that entity-tag <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be marked as weak by prefixing its opaque value with "W/" (case-sensitive).
     826            </p>
     827            <div id="entity.tag.generation">
     828               <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.1">2.3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tag.generation">Generation</a></h3>
     829               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.1">The principle behind entity-tags is that only the service author knows the implementation of a resource well enough to select
     830                  the most accurate and efficient validation mechanism for that resource, and that any such mechanism can be mapped to a simple
     831                  sequence of octets for easy comparison. Since the value is opaque, there is no need for the client to be aware of how each
     832                  entity-tag is constructed.
     833               </p>
     834               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.2">For example, a resource that has implementation-specific versioning applied to all changes might use an internal revision
     835                  number, perhaps combined with a variance identifier for content negotiation, to accurately differentiate between representations.
     836                  Other implementations might use a collision-resistant hash of representation content, a combination of various filesystem
     837                  attributes, or a modification timestamp that has sub-second resolution.
     838               </p>
     839               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.1.p.3">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send ETag for any selected representation for which detection of changes can be reasonably and consistently determined, since
     840                  the entity-tag's use in conditional requests and evaluating cache freshness (<a href="#Part6" id="rfc.xref.Part6.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[Part6]</cite></a>) can result in a substantial reduction of HTTP network traffic and can be a significant factor in improving service scalability
     841                  and reliability.
     842               </p>
     843            </div>
     844            <div id="entity.tag.comparison">
     845               <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.2">2.3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#entity.tag.comparison">Comparison</a></h3>
     846               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.2.p.1">There are two entity-tag comparison functions, depending on whether the comparison context allows the use of weak validators
     847                  or not:
     848               </p>
     849               <ul>
     850                  <li>The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical character-by-character, and both <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be weak.
     851                  </li>
     852                  <li>The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal, both opaque-tags <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be identical character-by-character, but either or both of them <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be tagged as "weak" without affecting the result.
     853                  </li>
     854               </ul>
     855               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.2.p.2">The example below shows the results for a set of entity-tag pairs, and both the weak and strong comparison function results:</p>
     856               <div id="rfc.table.u.1">
     857                  <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
     858                     <thead>
     859                        <tr>
     860                           <th>ETag 1</th>
     861                           <th>ETag 2</th>
     862                           <th>Strong Comparison</th>
     863                           <th>Weak Comparison</th>
     864                        </tr>
     865                     </thead>
     866                     <tbody>
     867                        <tr>
     868                           <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
     869                           <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
     870                           <td class="left">no match</td>
     871                           <td class="left">match</td>
     872                        </tr>
     873                        <tr>
     874                           <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
     875                           <td class="left">W/"2"</td>
     876                           <td class="left">no match</td>
     877                           <td class="left">no match</td>
     878                        </tr>
     879                        <tr>
     880                           <td class="left">W/"1"</td>
     881                           <td class="left">"1"</td>
     882                           <td class="left">no match</td>
     883                           <td class="left">match</td>
     884                        </tr>
     885                        <tr>
     886                           <td class="left">"1"</td>
     887                           <td class="left">"1"</td>
     888                           <td class="left">match</td>
     889                           <td class="left">match</td>
     890                        </tr>
     891                     </tbody>
     892                  </table>
     893               </div>
     894            </div>
     895            <div id="example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">
     896               <h3 id="rfc.section.2.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.2.3.3">2.3.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#example.entity.tag.vs.conneg">Example: Entity-tags varying on Content-Negotiated Resources</a></h3>
     897               <p id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.1">Consider a resource that is subject to content negotiation (<a href="p2-semantics.html#content.negotiation" title="Content Negotiation">Section 3.4</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>), and where the representations returned upon a GET request vary based on the <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.accept-encoding" class="smpl">Accept-Encoding</a> request header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.accept-encoding" title="Accept-Encoding">Section 6.3.4</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>):
     898               </p>
     899               <div id="rfc.figure.u.5"></div>
     900               <p>&gt;&gt; Request:</p><pre class="text2">GET /index HTTP/1.1
    862901Host: www.example.com
    863902Accept-Encoding: gzip
    864903
    865904</pre><p id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.3">In this case, the response might or might not use the gzip content coding. If it does not, the response might look like:</p>
    866       <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div>
    867       <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     905               <div id="rfc.figure.u.6"></div>
     906               <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    868907Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    869908ETag: "123-a"
     
    878917Hello World!
    879918</span></pre><p id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.5">An alternative representation that does use gzip content coding would be:</p>
    880       <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div>
    881       <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
     919               <div id="rfc.figure.u.7"></div>
     920               <p>&gt;&gt; Response:</p><pre class="text">HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    882921Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2010 00:05:00 GMT
    883922ETag: "123-b"
     
    887926Content-Encoding: gzip
    888927
    889 <em>...binary data...</em></pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.7">
    890          <p> <b>Note:</b> Content codings are a property of the representation, so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation has to be distinct
    891             from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates and range requests. In contrast, transfer codings
    892             (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 4</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>) apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
    893          </p>
     928<em>...binary data...</em></pre><div class="note" id="rfc.section.2.3.3.p.7">
     929                  <p><b>Note:</b> Content codings are a property of the representation, so therefore an entity-tag of an encoded representation has to be distinct
     930                     from an unencoded representation to prevent conflicts during cache updates and range requests. In contrast, transfer codings
     931                     (<a href="p1-messaging.html#transfer.codings" title="Transfer Codings">Section 4</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>) apply only during message transfer and do not require distinct entity-tags.
     932                  </p>
     933               </div>
     934            </div>
     935         </div>
     936         <div id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">
     937            <h2 id="rfc.section.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.2.4">2.4</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></h2>
     938            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
     939               ought to be used, and for what purposes.
     940            </p>
     941            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
     942            <ul>
     943               <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity-tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
     944               </li>
     945               <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,
     946                  or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity-tag.
     947               </li>
     948               <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value if it is feasible to send one.
     949               </li>
     950            </ul>
     951            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.3">In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 origin server is to send both a strong entity-tag and a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value.
     952            </p>
     953            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.4">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
     954            <ul>
     955               <li><em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use that entity-tag in any cache-conditional request (using <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> or <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>) if an entity-tag has been provided by the origin server.
     956               </li>
     957               <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value in non-subrange cache-conditional requests (using <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a>) if only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin server.
     958               </li>
     959               <li><em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value in subrange cache-conditional requests (using <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a>) if only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0 origin server. The user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty.
     960               </li>
     961               <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use both validators in cache-conditional requests if both an entity-tag and a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value have been provided by the origin server. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately.
     962               </li>
     963            </ul>
     964            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.5">An HTTP/1.1 origin server, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> or <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> header field) and one or more entity-tags (e.g., in an <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a>, <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>, or <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> header field) as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a response status code of <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in the request.
     965            </p>
     966            <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.6">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity-tags
     967               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
     968               fields in the request.
     969            </p>
     970            <ul class="empty">
     971               <li><b>Note:</b> The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1 servers and clients ought to transmit as much non-redundant information
     972                  as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
     973                  assumptions about the validators they receive.
     974               </li>
     975               <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches might ignore entity-tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
     976                  support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers still ought to provide Last-Modified values.
     977               </li>
     978            </ul>
     979         </div>
    894980      </div>
    895       <h2 id="rfc.section.2.4"><a href="#rfc.section.2.4">2.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates">Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates</a></h2>
    896       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.1">We adopt a set of rules and recommendations for origin servers, clients, and caches regarding when various validator types
    897          ought to be used, and for what purposes.
    898       </p>
    899       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.2">HTTP/1.1 origin servers: </p>
    900       <ul>
    901          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send an entity-tag validator unless it is not feasible to generate one.
    902          </li>
    903          <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,
    904             or if it is unfeasible to send a strong entity-tag.
    905          </li>
    906          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value if it is feasible to send one.
    907          </li>
    908       </ul>
    909       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.3">In other words, the preferred behavior for an HTTP/1.1 origin server is to send both a strong entity-tag and a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value.
    910       </p>
    911       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.4">HTTP/1.1 clients: </p>
    912       <ul>
    913          <li><em class="bcp14">MUST</em> use that entity-tag in any cache-conditional request (using <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> or <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>) if an entity-tag has been provided by the origin server.
    914          </li>
    915          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value in non-subrange cache-conditional requests (using <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a>) if only a Last-Modified value has been provided by the origin server.
    916          </li>
    917          <li><em class="bcp14">MAY</em> use the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value in subrange cache-conditional requests (using <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a>) if only a Last-Modified value has been provided by an HTTP/1.0 origin server. The user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> provide a way to disable this, in case of difficulty.
    918          </li>
    919          <li><em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> use both validators in cache-conditional requests if both an entity-tag and a <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> value have been provided by the origin server. This allows both HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 caches to respond appropriately.
    920          </li>
    921       </ul>
    922       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.5">An HTTP/1.1 origin server, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date (e.g., in an <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> or <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> header field) and one or more entity-tags (e.g., in an <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a>, <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>, or <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> header field) as cache validators, <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a response status code of <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> unless doing so is consistent with all of the conditional header fields in the request.
    923       </p>
    924       <p id="rfc.section.2.4.p.6">An HTTP/1.1 caching proxy, upon receiving a conditional request that includes both a Last-Modified date and one or more entity-tags
    925          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
    926          fields in the request.
    927       </p>
    928       <ul class="empty">
    929          <li> <b>Note:</b> The general principle behind these rules is that HTTP/1.1 servers and clients ought to transmit as much non-redundant information
    930             as is available in their responses and requests. HTTP/1.1 systems receiving this information will make the most conservative
    931             assumptions about the validators they receive.
    932          </li>
    933          <li>HTTP/1.0 clients and caches might ignore entity-tags. Generally, last-modified values received or used by these systems will
    934             support transparent and efficient caching, and so HTTP/1.1 origin servers still ought to provide Last-Modified values.
    935          </li>
    936       </ul>
    937       <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.field.definitions" href="#header.field.definitions">Precondition Header Fields</a></h1>
    938       <p id="rfc.section.3.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields for applying preconditions on requests. <a href="#precedence" title="Precedence">Section&nbsp;5</a> defines the order of evaluation when more than one precondition is present in a request.
    939       </p>
    940       <div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
    941       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-match" href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
    942       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">The "If-Match" header field can be used to make a request method conditional on the current existence or value of an entity-tag
    943          for one or more representations of the target resource.
    944       </p>
    945       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">If-Match is generally useful for resource update requests, such as PUT requests, as a means for protecting against accidental
    946          overwrites when multiple clients are acting in parallel on the same resource (i.e., the "lost update" problem). An If-Match
    947          field-value of "*" places the precondition on the existence of any current representation for the target resource.
    948       </p>
    949       <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     981      <div id="header.field.definitions">
     982         <h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.definitions">Precondition Header Fields</a></h1>
     983         <p id="rfc.section.3.p.1">This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header fields for applying preconditions on requests. <a href="#precedence" title="Precedence">Section&nbsp;5</a> defines the order of evaluation when more than one precondition is present in a request.
     984         </p>
     985         <div id="header.if-match">
     986            <div id="rfc.iref.i.1"></div>
     987            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-match">If-Match</a></h2>
     988            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1">The "If-Match" header field can be used to make a request method conditional on the current existence or value of an entity-tag
     989               for one or more representations of the target resource.
     990            </p>
     991            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2">If-Match is generally useful for resource update requests, such as PUT requests, as a means for protecting against accidental
     992               overwrites when multiple clients are acting in parallel on the same resource (i.e., the "lost update" problem). An If-Match
     993               field-value of "*" places the precondition on the existence of any current representation for the target resource.
     994            </p>
     995            <div id="rfc.figure.u.8"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    950996</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.4">The If-Match condition is met if and only if any of the entity-tags listed in the If-Match field value match the entity-tag
    951          of the selected representation for the target resource (as per <a href="#entity.tag.comparison" title="Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>), or if "*" is given and any current representation exists for the target resource.
    952       </p>
    953       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">If the condition is met, the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the request method as if the If-Match header field was not present.
    954       </p>
    955       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method if the condition is not met; instead they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with the <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition
    956             Failed)</a> status code.
    957       </p>
    958       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">Proxy servers using a cached response as the selected representation <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method if the condition is not met; instead, they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> forward the request towards the origin server.
    959       </p>
    960       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.2xx" class="smpl">2xx (Successful)</a> or <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a> status code, then the If-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
    961       </p>
    962       <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.9">Examples:</p>
    963       <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">  If-Match: "xyzzy"
     997               of the selected representation for the target resource (as per <a href="#entity.tag.comparison" title="Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>), or if "*" is given and any current representation exists for the target resource.
     998            </p>
     999            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.5">If the condition is met, the server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> perform the request method as if the If-Match header field was not present.
     1000            </p>
     1001            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.6">Origin servers <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method if the condition is not met; instead they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with the <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition
     1002                  Failed)</a> status code.
     1003            </p>
     1004            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.7">Proxy servers using a cached response as the selected representation <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method if the condition is not met; instead, they <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> forward the request towards the origin server.
     1005            </p>
     1006            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.8">If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.2xx" class="smpl">2xx (Successful)</a> or <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a> status code, then the If-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
     1007            </p>
     1008            <p id="rfc.section.3.1.p.9">Examples:</p>
     1009            <div id="rfc.figure.u.9"></div><pre class="text">  If-Match: "xyzzy"
    9641010  If-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    9651011  If-Match: *
    966 </pre><div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
    967       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-none-match" href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
    968       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">The "If-None-Match" header field can be used to make a request method conditional on not matching any of the current entity-tag
    969          values for representations of the target resource.
    970       </p>
    971       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.2">If-None-Match is primarily used in conditional GET requests to enable efficient updates of cached information with a minimum
    972          amount of transaction overhead. A client that has one or more representations previously obtained from the target resource
    973          can send If-None-Match with a list of the associated entity-tags in the hope of receiving a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not
    974             Modified)</a> response if at least one of those representations matches the selected representation.
    975       </p>
    976       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.3">If-None-Match can also be used with a value of "*" to prevent an unsafe request method (e.g., PUT) from inadvertently modifying
    977          an existing representation of the target resource when the client believes that the resource does not have a current representation.
    978          This is a variation on the "lost update" problem that might arise if more than one client attempts to create an initial representation
    979          for the target resource.
    980       </p>
    981       <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
     1012</pre></div>
     1013         <div id="header.if-none-match">
     1014            <div id="rfc.iref.i.2"></div>
     1015            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-none-match">If-None-Match</a></h2>
     1016            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1">The "If-None-Match" header field can be used to make a request method conditional on not matching any of the current entity-tag
     1017               values for representations of the target resource.
     1018            </p>
     1019            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.2">If-None-Match is primarily used in conditional GET requests to enable efficient updates of cached information with a minimum
     1020               amount of transaction overhead. A client that has one or more representations previously obtained from the target resource
     1021               can send If-None-Match with a list of the associated entity-tags in the hope of receiving a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not
     1022                  Modified)</a> response if at least one of those representations matches the selected representation.
     1023            </p>
     1024            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.3">If-None-Match can also be used with a value of "*" to prevent an unsafe request method (e.g., PUT) from inadvertently modifying
     1025               an existing representation of the target resource when the client believes that the resource does not have a current representation.
     1026               This is a variation on the "lost update" problem that might arise if more than one client attempts to create an initial representation
     1027               for the target resource.
     1028            </p>
     1029            <div id="rfc.figure.u.10"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> = "*" / 1#<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">entity-tag</a>
    9821030</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.5">The If-None-Match condition is met if and only if none of the entity-tags listed in the If-None-Match field value match the
    983          entity-tag of the selected representation for the target resource (as per <a href="#entity.tag.comparison" title="Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>), or if "*" is given and no current representation exists for that resource.
    984       </p>
    985       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.6">If the condition is not met, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method. Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> status code, including the cache-related header fields (particularly <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>) of the selected representation that has a matching entity-tag. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition
    986             Failed)</a> status code.
    987       </p>
    988       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.7">If the condition is met, 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 <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> header field(s) in the request. That is, if no entity-tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304
    989             (Not Modified)</a> response.
    990       </p>
    991       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.8">If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.2xx" class="smpl">2xx (Successful)</a> or <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> status code, then the If-None-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored. (See <a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" title="Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates">Section&nbsp;2.4</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
    992       </p>
    993       <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.9">Examples:</p>
    994       <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">  If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
     1031               entity-tag of the selected representation for the target resource (as per <a href="#entity.tag.comparison" title="Comparison">Section&nbsp;2.3.2</a>), or if "*" is given and no current representation exists for that resource.
     1032            </p>
     1033            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.6">If the condition is not met, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested method. Instead, if the request method was GET or HEAD, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> respond with a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> status code, including the cache-related header fields (particularly <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>) of the selected representation that has a matching entity-tag. For all other request methods, the server <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> respond with a <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition
     1034                  Failed)</a> status code.
     1035            </p>
     1036            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.7">If the condition is met, 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 <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> header field(s) in the request. That is, if no entity-tags match, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> return a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304
     1037                  (Not Modified)</a> response.
     1038            </p>
     1039            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.8">If the request would, without the If-None-Match header field, result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.2xx" class="smpl">2xx (Successful)</a> or <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> status code, then the If-None-Match header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored. (See <a href="#rules.for.when.to.use.entity.tags.and.last-modified.dates" title="Rules for When to Use Entity-tags and Last-Modified Dates">Section&nbsp;2.4</a> for a discussion of server behavior when both <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> and If-None-Match appear in the same request.)
     1040            </p>
     1041            <p id="rfc.section.3.2.p.9">Examples:</p>
     1042            <div id="rfc.figure.u.11"></div><pre class="text">  If-None-Match: "xyzzy"
    9951043  If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy"
    9961044  If-None-Match: "xyzzy", "r2d2xxxx", "c3piozzzz"
    9971045  If-None-Match: W/"xyzzy", W/"r2d2xxxx", W/"c3piozzzz"
    9981046  If-None-Match: *
    999 </pre><div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
    1000       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-modified-since" href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
    1001       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">The "If-Modified-Since" header field can be used with GET or HEAD to make the method conditional by modification date: if
    1002          the selected representation has not been modified since the time specified in this field, then do not perform the request
    1003          method; instead, respond as detailed below.
    1004       </p>
    1005       <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     1047</pre></div>
     1048         <div id="header.if-modified-since">
     1049            <div id="rfc.iref.i.3"></div>
     1050            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3.3">3.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-modified-since">If-Modified-Since</a></h2>
     1051            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.1">The "If-Modified-Since" header field can be used with GET or HEAD to make the method conditional by modification date: if
     1052               the selected representation has not been modified since the time specified in this field, then do not perform the request
     1053               method; instead, respond as detailed below.
     1054            </p>
     1055            <div id="rfc.figure.u.12"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    10061056</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    1007       <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">  If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     1057            <div id="rfc.figure.u.13"></div><pre class="text">  If-Modified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    10081058</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.5">A GET method with an If-Modified-Since header field and no <a href="p5-range.html#range.retrieval.requests" class="smpl">Range</a> header field requests that the selected representation be transferred only if it has been modified since the date given by
    1009          the If-Modified-Since header field. The algorithm for determining this includes the following cases:
    1010       </p>
    1011       <ol>
    1012          <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> status code, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date
    1013             which is later than the server's current time is invalid.
    1014          </li>
    1015          <li>If the selected representation has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for
    1016             a normal GET.
    1017          </li>
    1018          <li>If the selected representation has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> response.
    1019          </li>
    1020       </ol>
    1021       <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
    1022       <ul class="empty">
    1023          <li> <b>Note:</b> The <a href="p5-range.html#range.retrieval.requests" class="smpl">Range</a> header field modifies the meaning of If-Modified-Since; see <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 5.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
    1024          </li>
    1025          <li> <b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
    1026          </li>
    1027          <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
    1028             function, for deciding whether to send a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since header field for cache validation, clients are advised to
    1029             use the exact date string received in a previous <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> header field whenever possible.
    1030          </li>
    1031          <li> <b>Note:</b> If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since header field instead of a date taken from the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> header field for the same request, the client needs to be aware that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding
    1032             of time. Unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems, due to the different encodings of time between the client and server,
    1033             are concerns. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first requested
    1034             and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the If-Modified-Since
    1035             date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different time bases between
    1036             client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
    1037          </li>
    1038       </ul>
    1039       <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
    1040       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-unmodified-since" href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
    1041       <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.1">The "If-Unmodified-Since" header field can be used to make a request method conditional by modification date: if the selected
    1042          representation has been modified since the time specified in this field, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> instead respond with the <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a> status code. If the selected representation has not been modified since the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the request method as if the If-Unmodified-Since header field were not present.
    1043       </p>
    1044       <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
     1059               the If-Modified-Since header field. The algorithm for determining this includes the following cases:
     1060            </p>
     1061            <ol>
     1062               <li>If the request would normally result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> status code, or if the passed If-Modified-Since date is invalid, the response is exactly the same as for a normal GET. A date
     1063                  which is later than the server's current time is invalid.
     1064               </li>
     1065               <li>If the selected representation has been modified since the If-Modified-Since date, the response is exactly the same as for
     1066                  a normal GET.
     1067               </li>
     1068               <li>If the selected representation has not been modified since a valid If-Modified-Since date, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> return a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> response.
     1069               </li>
     1070            </ol>
     1071            <p id="rfc.section.3.3.p.6">The purpose of this feature is to allow efficient updates of cached information with a minimum amount of transaction overhead. </p>
     1072            <ul class="empty">
     1073               <li><b>Note:</b> The <a href="p5-range.html#range.retrieval.requests" class="smpl">Range</a> header field modifies the meaning of If-Modified-Since; see <a href="p5-range.html#header.range" title="Range">Section 5.4</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests">[Part5]</cite></a> for full details.
     1074               </li>
     1075               <li><b>Note:</b> If-Modified-Since times are interpreted by the server, whose clock might not be synchronized with the client.
     1076               </li>
     1077               <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
     1078                  function, for deciding whether to send a <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a> response. To get best results when sending an If-Modified-Since header field for cache validation, clients are advised to
     1079                  use the exact date string received in a previous <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> header field whenever possible.
     1080               </li>
     1081               <li><b>Note:</b> If a client uses an arbitrary date in the If-Modified-Since header field instead of a date taken from the <a href="#header.last-modified" class="smpl">Last-Modified</a> header field for the same request, the client needs to be aware that this date is interpreted in the server's understanding
     1082                  of time. Unsynchronized clocks and rounding problems, due to the different encodings of time between the client and server,
     1083                  are concerns. This includes the possibility of race conditions if the document has changed between the time it was first requested
     1084                  and the If-Modified-Since date of a subsequent request, and the possibility of clock-skew-related problems if the If-Modified-Since
     1085                  date is derived from the client's clock without correction to the server's clock. Corrections for different time bases between
     1086                  client and server are at best approximate due to network latency.
     1087               </li>
     1088            </ul>
     1089         </div>
     1090         <div id="header.if-unmodified-since">
     1091            <div id="rfc.iref.i.4"></div>
     1092            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.4"><a href="#rfc.section.3.4">3.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-unmodified-since">If-Unmodified-Since</a></h2>
     1093            <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.1">The "If-Unmodified-Since" header field can be used to make a request method conditional by modification date: if the selected
     1094               representation has been modified since the time specified in this field, then the server <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> perform the requested operation and <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> instead respond with the <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a> status code. If the selected representation has not been modified since the time specified in this field, the server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> perform the request method as if the If-Unmodified-Since header field were not present.
     1095            </p>
     1096            <div id="rfc.figure.u.14"></div><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.10"></span>  <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>
    10451097</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.3">An example of the field is:</p>
    1046       <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">  If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
     1098            <div id="rfc.figure.u.15"></div><pre class="text">  If-Unmodified-Since: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:43:31 GMT
    10471099</pre><p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.5">If a request normally (i.e., in absence of the If-Unmodified-Since header field) would result in anything other than a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.2xx" class="smpl">2xx (Successful)</a> or <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a> status code, the If-Unmodified-Since header field <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> be ignored.
    1048       </p>
    1049       <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.6">If the specified date is invalid, the header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
    1050       </p>
    1051       <h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.if-range" href="#header.if-range">If-Range</a></h2>
    1052       <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.1">The "If-Range" header field provides a special conditional request mechanism that is similar to <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> and <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> but specific to HTTP range requests. If-Range is defined in <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 5.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests">[Part5]</cite></a>.
    1053       </p>
    1054       <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.code.definitions" href="#status.code.definitions">Status Code Definitions</a></h1>
    1055       <div id="rfc.iref.21"></div>
    1056       <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>
    1057       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">The 304 status code indicates that a conditional GET request has been received and would have resulted in a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> response if it were not for the fact that the condition has evaluated to false. In other words, there is no need for the server
    1058          to transfer a representation of the target resource because the client's request indicates that it already has a valid representation,
    1059          as indicated by the 304 response header fields, and is therefore redirecting the client to make use of that stored representation
    1060          as if it were the payload of a 200 response. 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.
    1061       </p>
    1062       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2">A 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" title="Date">Section 8.1.1.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>) unless the origin server does not have a clock that can provide a reasonable approximation of the current time. If a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200
    1063             (OK)</a> response to the same request would have included any of the header fields <a href="p6-cache.html#header.cache-control" class="smpl">Cache-Control</a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location</a>, <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.expires" class="smpl">Expires</a>, or <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.vary" class="smpl">Vary</a>, then those same header fields <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be sent in a 304 response.
    1064       </p>
    1065       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">Since the goal of a 304 response is to minimize information transfer when the recipient already has one or more cached representations,
    1066          the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include representation metadata other than the above listed fields unless said metadata exists for the purpose of guiding
    1067          cache updates (e.g., future HTTP extensions).
    1068       </p>
    1069       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.4">If the recipient of a 304 response does not have a cached representation corresponding to the entity-tag indicated by the
    1070          304 response, then the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use the 304 to update its own cache. If this conditional request originated with an outbound client, such as a user agent
    1071          with its own cache sending a conditional GET to a shared proxy, then the 304 response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be forwarded to that client. Otherwise, the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disregard the 304 response and repeat the request without any preconditions.
    1072       </p>
    1073       <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.5">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.
    1074       </p>
    1075       <div id="rfc.iref.21"></div>
    1076       <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>
    1077       <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">The 412 status code indicates that one or more preconditions given in the request header fields evaluated to false when tested
    1078          on the server. This response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource state (its current representations
    1079          and metadata) and thus prevent the request method from being applied if the target resource is in an unexpected state.
    1080       </p>
    1081       <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="precedence" href="#precedence">Precedence</a></h1>
    1082       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">When more than one conditional request header field is present in a request, the order in which the fields are evaluated becomes
    1083          important. In practice, the fields defined in this document are consistently implemented in a single, logical order, due to
    1084          the fact that entity tags are presumed to be more accurate than date validators. For example, the only reason to send both <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> in the same GET request is to support intermediary caches that might not have implemented <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>, so it makes sense to ignore the <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> when entity tags are understood and available for the selected representation.
    1085       </p>
    1086       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">The general rule of conditional precedence is that exact match conditions are evaluated before cache-validating conditions
    1087          and, within that order, last-modified conditions are only evaluated if the corresponding entity tag condition is not present
    1088          (or not applicable because the selected representation does not have an entity tag).
    1089       </p>
    1090       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">Specifically, the fields defined by this specification are evaluated as follows: </p>
    1091       <ol>
    1092          <li>When <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> is present, evaluate it:
    1093             <ul>
    1094                <li>if true, continue to step 3</li>
    1095                <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
    1096             </ul>
    1097          </li>
    1098          <li>When <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> is not present and <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> is present, evaluate it:
    1099             <ul>
    1100                <li>if true, continue to step 3</li>
    1101                <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
    1102             </ul>
    1103          </li>
    1104          <li>When the method is GET and both <a href="p5-range.html#range.retrieval.requests" class="smpl">Range</a> and <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> are present, evaluate it:
    1105             <ul>
    1106                <li>if the validator matches, respond 206 (Partial Content)</li>
    1107                <li>if the validator does not match, respond <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a></li>
    1108             </ul>
    1109          </li>
    1110          <li>When <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> is present, evaluate it:
    1111             <ul>
    1112                <li>if true, all conditions are met</li>
    1113                <li>if false for GET/HEAD, respond <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a></li>
    1114                <li>if false for other methods, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
    1115             </ul>
    1116          </li>
    1117          <li>When the method is GET or HEAD, <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> is not present, and <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> is present, evaluate it:
    1118             <ul>
    1119                <li>if true, all conditions are met</li>
    1120                <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a></li>
    1121             </ul>
    1122          </li>
    1123       </ol>
    1124       <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">Any extension to HTTP/1.1 that defines additional conditional request header fields ought to define its own expectations regarding
    1125          the order for evaluating such fields in relation to those defined in this document and other conditionals that might be found
    1126          in practice.
    1127       </p>
    1128       <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a id="IANA.considerations" href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
    1129       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="status.code.registration" href="#status.code.registration">Status Code Registration</a></h2>
    1130       <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The HTTP Status Code Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes">http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes</a>&gt; shall be updated with the registrations below:
    1131       </p>
    1132       <div id="rfc.table.1">
    1133          <div id="iana.status.code.registration.table"></div>
    1134          <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    1135             <thead>
    1136                <tr>
    1137                   <th>Value</th>
    1138                   <th>Description</th>
    1139                   <th>Reference</th>
    1140                </tr>
    1141             </thead>
    1142             <tbody>
    1143                <tr>
    1144                   <td class="left">304</td>
    1145                   <td class="left">Not Modified</td>
    1146                   <td class="left"> <a href="#status.304" id="rfc.xref.status.304.1" title="304 Not Modified">Section&nbsp;4.1</a>
    1147                   </td>
    1148                </tr>
    1149                <tr>
    1150                   <td class="left">412</td>
    1151                   <td class="left">Precondition Failed</td>
    1152                   <td class="left"> <a href="#status.412" id="rfc.xref.status.412.1" title="412 Precondition Failed">Section&nbsp;4.2</a>
    1153                   </td>
    1154                </tr>
    1155             </tbody>
    1156          </table>
     1100            </p>
     1101            <p id="rfc.section.3.4.p.6">If the specified date is invalid, the header field <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be ignored.
     1102            </p>
     1103         </div>
     1104         <div id="header.if-range">
     1105            <h2 id="rfc.section.3.5"><a href="#rfc.section.3.5">3.5</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.if-range">If-Range</a></h2>
     1106            <p id="rfc.section.3.5.p.1">The "If-Range" header field provides a special conditional request mechanism that is similar to <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> and <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> but specific to HTTP range requests. If-Range is defined in <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" title="If-Range">Section 5.3</a> of <a href="#Part5" id="rfc.xref.Part5.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests">[Part5]</cite></a>.
     1107            </p>
     1108         </div>
    11571109      </div>
    1158       <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="header.field.registration" href="#header.field.registration">Header Field Registration</a></h2>
    1159       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The Message Header Field 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; shall 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>):
    1160       </p>
    1161       <div id="rfc.table.2">
    1162          <div id="iana.header.registration.table"></div>
    1163          <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
    1164             <thead>
    1165                <tr>
    1166                   <th>Header Field Name</th>
    1167                   <th>Protocol</th>
    1168                   <th>Status</th>
    1169                   <th>Reference</th>
    1170                </tr>
    1171             </thead>
    1172             <tbody>
    1173                <tr>
    1174                   <td class="left">ETag</td>
    1175                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1176                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1177                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.2" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>
    1178                   </td>
    1179                </tr>
    1180                <tr>
    1181                   <td class="left">If-Match</td>
    1182                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1183                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1184                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>
    1185                   </td>
    1186                </tr>
    1187                <tr>
    1188                   <td class="left">If-Modified-Since</td>
    1189                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1190                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1191                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-modified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1" title="If-Modified-Since">Section&nbsp;3.3</a>
    1192                   </td>
    1193                </tr>
    1194                <tr>
    1195                   <td class="left">If-None-Match</td>
    1196                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1197                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1198                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>
    1199                   </td>
    1200                </tr>
    1201                <tr>
    1202                   <td class="left">If-Unmodified-Since</td>
    1203                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1204                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1205                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1" title="If-Unmodified-Since">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>
    1206                   </td>
    1207                </tr>
    1208                <tr>
    1209                   <td class="left">Last-Modified</td>
    1210                   <td class="left">http</td>
    1211                   <td class="left">standard</td>
    1212                   <td class="left"> <a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.2" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>
    1213                   </td>
    1214                </tr>
    1215             </tbody>
    1216          </table>
     1110      <div id="status.code.definitions">
     1111         <h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.definitions">Status Code Definitions</a></h1>
     1112         <div id="status.304">
     1113            <div id="rfc.iref.3.1"></div>
     1114            <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>
     1115            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1">The 304 status code indicates that a conditional GET request has been received and would have resulted in a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a> response if it were not for the fact that the condition has evaluated to false. In other words, there is no need for the server
     1116               to transfer a representation of the target resource because the client's request indicates that it already has a valid representation,
     1117               as indicated by the 304 response header fields, and is therefore redirecting the client to make use of that stored representation
     1118               as if it were the payload of a 200 response. 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.
     1119            </p>
     1120            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2">A 304 response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include a <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" class="smpl">Date</a> header field (<a href="p2-semantics.html#header.date" title="Date">Section 8.1.1.2</a> of <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>) unless the origin server does not have a clock that can provide a reasonable approximation of the current time. If a <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200
     1121                  (OK)</a> response to the same request would have included any of the header fields <a href="p6-cache.html#header.cache-control" class="smpl">Cache-Control</a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.content-location" class="smpl">Content-Location</a>, <a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>, <a href="p6-cache.html#header.expires" class="smpl">Expires</a>, or <a href="p2-semantics.html#header.vary" class="smpl">Vary</a>, then those same header fields <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be sent in a 304 response.
     1122            </p>
     1123            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3">Since the goal of a 304 response is to minimize information transfer when the recipient already has one or more cached representations,
     1124               the response <em class="bcp14">SHOULD NOT</em> include representation metadata other than the above listed fields unless said metadata exists for the purpose of guiding
     1125               cache updates (e.g., future HTTP extensions).
     1126            </p>
     1127            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.4">If the recipient of a 304 response does not have a cached representation corresponding to the entity-tag indicated by the
     1128               304 response, then the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use the 304 to update its own cache. If this conditional request originated with an outbound client, such as a user agent
     1129               with its own cache sending a conditional GET to a shared proxy, then the 304 response <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> be forwarded to that client. Otherwise, the recipient <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> disregard the 304 response and repeat the request without any preconditions.
     1130            </p>
     1131            <p id="rfc.section.4.1.p.5">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.
     1132            </p>
     1133         </div>
     1134         <div id="status.412">
     1135            <div id="rfc.iref.4.1"></div>
     1136            <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>
     1137            <p id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1">The 412 status code indicates that one or more preconditions given in the request header fields evaluated to false when tested
     1138               on the server. This response code allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource state (its current representations
     1139               and metadata) and thus prevent the request method from being applied if the target resource is in an unexpected state.
     1140            </p>
     1141         </div>
    12171142      </div>
    1218       <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
    1219       <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a id="security.considerations" href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
    1220       <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    1221       </p>
    1222       <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">The validators defined by this specification are not intended to ensure the validity of a representation, guard against malicious
    1223          changes, or detect man-in-the-middle attacks. At best, they enable more efficient cache updates and optimistic concurrent
    1224          writes when all participants are behaving nicely. At worst, the conditions will fail and the client will receive a response
    1225          that is no more harmful than an HTTP exchange without conditional requests.
    1226       </p>
    1227       <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a id="acks" href="#acks">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
    1228       <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">See <a href="p1-messaging.html#acks" title="Acknowledgments">Section 9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
    1229       </p>
     1143      <div id="precedence">
     1144         <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#precedence">Precedence</a></h1>
     1145         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.1">When more than one conditional request header field is present in a request, the order in which the fields are evaluated becomes
     1146            important. In practice, the fields defined in this document are consistently implemented in a single, logical order, due to
     1147            the fact that entity tags are presumed to be more accurate than date validators. For example, the only reason to send both <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> in the same GET request is to support intermediary caches that might not have implemented <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a>, so it makes sense to ignore the <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> when entity tags are understood and available for the selected representation.
     1148         </p>
     1149         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.2">The general rule of conditional precedence is that exact match conditions are evaluated before cache-validating conditions
     1150            and, within that order, last-modified conditions are only evaluated if the corresponding entity tag condition is not present
     1151            (or not applicable because the selected representation does not have an entity tag).
     1152         </p>
     1153         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.3">Specifically, the fields defined by this specification are evaluated as follows: </p>
     1154         <ol>
     1155            <li>When <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> is present, evaluate it:
     1156               <ul>
     1157                  <li>if true, continue to step 3</li>
     1158                  <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
     1159               </ul>
     1160            </li>
     1161            <li>When <a href="#header.if-match" class="smpl">If-Match</a> is not present and <a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" class="smpl">If-Unmodified-Since</a> is present, evaluate it:
     1162               <ul>
     1163                  <li>if true, continue to step 3</li>
     1164                  <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
     1165               </ul>
     1166            </li>
     1167            <li>When the method is GET and both <a href="p5-range.html#range.retrieval.requests" class="smpl">Range</a> and <a href="p5-range.html#header.if-range" class="smpl">If-Range</a> are present, evaluate it:
     1168               <ul>
     1169                  <li>if the validator matches, respond 206 (Partial Content)</li>
     1170                  <li>if the validator does not match, respond <a href="p2-semantics.html#status.200" class="smpl">200 (OK)</a></li>
     1171               </ul>
     1172            </li>
     1173            <li>When <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> is present, evaluate it:
     1174               <ul>
     1175                  <li>if true, all conditions are met</li>
     1176                  <li>if false for GET/HEAD, respond <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a></li>
     1177                  <li>if false for other methods, respond <a href="#status.412" class="smpl">412 (Precondition Failed)</a></li>
     1178               </ul>
     1179            </li>
     1180            <li>When the method is GET or HEAD, <a href="#header.if-none-match" class="smpl">If-None-Match</a> is not present, and <a href="#header.if-modified-since" class="smpl">If-Modified-Since</a> is present, evaluate it:
     1181               <ul>
     1182                  <li>if true, all conditions are met</li>
     1183                  <li>if false, respond <a href="#status.304" class="smpl">304 (Not Modified)</a></li>
     1184               </ul>
     1185            </li>
     1186         </ol>
     1187         <p id="rfc.section.5.p.4">Any extension to HTTP/1.1 that defines additional conditional request header fields ought to define its own expectations regarding
     1188            the order for evaluating such fields in relation to those defined in this document and other conditionals that might be found
     1189            in practice.
     1190         </p>
     1191      </div>
     1192      <div id="IANA.considerations">
     1193         <h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1>
     1194         <div id="status.code.registration">
     1195            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.registration">Status Code Registration</a></h2>
     1196            <p id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1">The HTTP Status Code Registry located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes">http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes</a>&gt; shall be updated with the registrations below:
     1197            </p>
     1198            <div id="rfc.table.1">
     1199               <div id="iana.status.code.registration.table"></div>
     1200               <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
     1201                  <thead>
     1202                     <tr>
     1203                        <th>Value</th>
     1204                        <th>Description</th>
     1205                        <th>Reference</th>
     1206                     </tr>
     1207                  </thead>
     1208                  <tbody>
     1209                     <tr>
     1210                        <td class="left">304</td>
     1211                        <td class="left">Not Modified</td>
     1212                        <td class="left"><a href="#status.304" id="rfc.xref.status.304.1" title="304 Not Modified">Section&nbsp;4.1</a>
     1213                        </td>
     1214                     </tr>
     1215                     <tr>
     1216                        <td class="left">412</td>
     1217                        <td class="left">Precondition Failed</td>
     1218                        <td class="left"><a href="#status.412" id="rfc.xref.status.412.1" title="412 Precondition Failed">Section&nbsp;4.2</a>
     1219                        </td>
     1220                     </tr>
     1221                  </tbody>
     1222               </table>
     1223            </div>
     1224         </div>
     1225         <div id="header.field.registration">
     1226            <h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.registration">Header Field Registration</a></h2>
     1227            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1">The Message Header Field 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; shall 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>):
     1228            </p>
     1229            <div id="rfc.table.2">
     1230               <div id="iana.header.registration.table"></div>
     1231               <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
     1232                  <thead>
     1233                     <tr>
     1234                        <th>Header Field Name</th>
     1235                        <th>Protocol</th>
     1236                        <th>Status</th>
     1237                        <th>Reference</th>
     1238                     </tr>
     1239                  </thead>
     1240                  <tbody>
     1241                     <tr>
     1242                        <td class="left">ETag</td>
     1243                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1244                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1245                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.2" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>
     1246                        </td>
     1247                     </tr>
     1248                     <tr>
     1249                        <td class="left">If-Match</td>
     1250                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1251                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1252                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-match.1" title="If-Match">Section&nbsp;3.1</a>
     1253                        </td>
     1254                     </tr>
     1255                     <tr>
     1256                        <td class="left">If-Modified-Since</td>
     1257                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1258                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1259                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-modified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-modified-since.1" title="If-Modified-Since">Section&nbsp;3.3</a>
     1260                        </td>
     1261                     </tr>
     1262                     <tr>
     1263                        <td class="left">If-None-Match</td>
     1264                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1265                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1266                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.1" title="If-None-Match">Section&nbsp;3.2</a>
     1267                        </td>
     1268                     </tr>
     1269                     <tr>
     1270                        <td class="left">If-Unmodified-Since</td>
     1271                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1272                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1273                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.if-unmodified-since" id="rfc.xref.header.if-unmodified-since.1" title="If-Unmodified-Since">Section&nbsp;3.4</a>
     1274                        </td>
     1275                     </tr>
     1276                     <tr>
     1277                        <td class="left">Last-Modified</td>
     1278                        <td class="left">http</td>
     1279                        <td class="left">standard</td>
     1280                        <td class="left"><a href="#header.last-modified" id="rfc.xref.header.last-modified.2" title="Last-Modified">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>
     1281                        </td>
     1282                     </tr>
     1283                  </tbody>
     1284               </table>
     1285            </div>
     1286            <p id="rfc.section.6.2.p.2">The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".</p>
     1287         </div>
     1288      </div>
     1289      <div id="security.considerations">
     1290         <h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1>
     1291         <p id="rfc.section.7.p.1">No additional security considerations have been identified beyond those applicable to HTTP in general <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     1292         </p>
     1293         <p id="rfc.section.7.p.2">The validators defined by this specification are not intended to ensure the validity of a representation, guard against malicious
     1294            changes, or detect man-in-the-middle attacks. At best, they enable more efficient cache updates and optimistic concurrent
     1295            writes when all participants are behaving nicely. At worst, the conditions will fail and the client will receive a response
     1296            that is no more harmful than an HTTP exchange without conditional requests.
     1297         </p>
     1298      </div>
     1299      <div id="acks">
     1300         <h1 id="rfc.section.8"><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#acks">Acknowledgments</a></h1>
     1301         <p id="rfc.section.8.p.1">See <a href="p1-messaging.html#acks" title="Acknowledgments">Section 9</a> of <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>.
     1302         </p>
     1303      </div>
    12301304      <h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.9" href="#rfc.section.9">9.</a> References
    12311305      </h1>
    12321306      <h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.9.1" id="rfc.section.9.1">9.1</a> Normative References
    12331307      </h2>
    1234       <table>           
     1308      <table>
    12351309         <tr>
    12361310            <td class="reference"><b id="Part1">[Part1]</b></td>
    1237             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., 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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
     1311            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., 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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
    12381312            </td>
    12391313         </tr>
    12401314         <tr>
    12411315            <td class="reference"><b id="Part2">[Part2]</b></td>
    1242             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., 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-p2-semantics-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
     1316            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., 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-p2-semantics-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
    12431317            </td>
    12441318         </tr>
    12451319         <tr>
    12461320            <td class="reference"><b id="Part5">[Part5]</b></td>
    1247             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., Ed.</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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
     1321            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., Ed.</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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
    12481322            </td>
    12491323         </tr>
    12501324         <tr>
    12511325            <td class="reference"><b id="Part6">[Part6]</b></td>
    1252             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@mnot.net" title="Akamai">Nottingham, M., 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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
     1326            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:fielding@gbiv.com" title="Adobe Systems Incorporated">Fielding, R., Ed.</a>, <a href="mailto:mnot@mnot.net" title="Akamai">Nottingham, M., 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-21">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching</a>”, Internet-Draft&nbsp;draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-21 (work in progress), October&nbsp;2012.
    12531327            </td>
    12541328         </tr>
    12551329         <tr>
    12561330            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td>
    1257             <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.
     1331            <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.
    12581332            </td>
    12591333         </tr>
    12601334         <tr>
    12611335            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC5234">[RFC5234]</b></td>
    1262             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:dcrocker@bbiw.net" title="Brandenburg InternetWorking">Crocker, D., Ed.</a> and <a href="mailto:paul.overell@thus.net" title="THUS plc.">P. Overell</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234">Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</a>”, STD&nbsp;68, RFC&nbsp;5234, January&nbsp;2008.
     1336            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:dcrocker@bbiw.net" title="Brandenburg InternetWorking">Crocker, D., Ed.</a> and <a href="mailto:paul.overell@thus.net" title="THUS plc.">P. Overell</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234">Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</a>”, STD&nbsp;68, RFC&nbsp;5234, January&nbsp;2008.
    12631337            </td>
    12641338         </tr>
     
    12661340      <h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.9.2" id="rfc.section.9.2">9.2</a> Informative References
    12671341      </h2>
    1268       <table>     
     1342      <table>
    12691343         <tr>
    12701344            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td>
    1271             <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.
     1345            <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.
    12721346            </td>
    12731347         </tr>
    12741348         <tr>
    12751349            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC3864">[RFC3864]</b></td>
    1276             <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.
     1350            <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.
    12771351            </td>
    12781352         </tr>
    12791353         <tr>
    12801354            <td class="reference"><b id="RFC4918">[RFC4918]</b></td>
    1281             <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ldusseault@commerce.net" title="CommerceNet">Dusseault, L., Ed.</a>, “<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918">HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;4918, June&nbsp;2007.
     1355            <td class="top"><a href="mailto:ldusseault@commerce.net" title="CommerceNet">Dusseault, L., Ed.</a>, “<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918">HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)</a>”, RFC&nbsp;4918, June&nbsp;2007.
    12821356            </td>
    12831357         </tr>
    12841358      </table>
    1285       <div class="avoidbreak">
    1286          <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
    1287          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Roy T. Fielding</span>
    1288                (editor)
    1289                <span class="n hidden"><span class="family-name">Fielding</span><span class="given-name">Roy T.</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: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>
    1290          <address class="vcard"><span class="vcardline"><span class="fn">Julian F. Reschke</span>
    1291                (editor)
    1292                <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">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>
     1359      <div id="changes.from.rfc.2616">
     1360         <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h1>
     1361         <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">Allow weak entity-tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">2.1</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">3.2</a>).
     1362         </p>
     1363         <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">Change "<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>" header field ABNF not to use quoted-string, thus avoiding escaping issues. (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.3" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>)
     1364         </p>
    12931365      </div>
    1294       <h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.from.rfc.2616" href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFC 2616</a></h1>
    1295       <p id="rfc.section.A.p.1">Allow weak entity-tags in all requests except range requests (Sections <a href="#weak.and.strong.validators" title="Weak versus Strong">2.1</a> and <a href="#header.if-none-match" id="rfc.xref.header.if-none-match.2" title="If-None-Match">3.2</a>).
    1296       </p>
    1297       <p id="rfc.section.A.p.2">Change "<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a>" header field ABNF not to use quoted-string, thus avoiding escaping issues. (<a href="#header.etag" id="rfc.xref.header.etag.3" title="ETag">Section&nbsp;2.3</a>)
    1298       </p>
    1299       <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a id="imported.abnf" href="#imported.abnf">Imported ABNF</a></h1>
    1300       <p id="rfc.section.B.p.1">The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1</a> of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.2"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a>: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG
    1301          (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
    1302          character).
    1303       </p>
    1304       <p id="rfc.section.B.p.2">The rules below are defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.7"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>:
    1305       </p>
    1306       <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">OWS</a>           = &lt;OWS, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#whitespace" title="Whitespace">Section 3.2.1</a>&gt;
     1366      <div id="imported.abnf">
     1367         <h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#imported.abnf">Imported ABNF</a></h1>
     1368         <p id="rfc.section.B.p.1">The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1</a> of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.2"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a>: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG
     1369            (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
     1370            character).
     1371         </p>
     1372         <p id="rfc.section.B.p.2">The rules below are defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.7"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>:
     1373         </p>
     1374         <div id="rfc.figure.u.16"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">OWS</a>           = &lt;OWS, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.8"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#whitespace" title="Whitespace">Section 3.2.1</a>&gt;
    13071375  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">obs-text</a>      = &lt;obs-text, defined in <a href="#Part1" id="rfc.xref.Part1.9"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[Part1]</cite></a>, <a href="p1-messaging.html#field.components" title="Field value components">Section 3.2.4</a>&gt;
    13081376</pre><p id="rfc.section.B.p.4">The rules below are defined in other parts:</p>
    1309       <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>     = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#http.date" title="Date/Time Formats">Section 8.1.1.1</a>&gt;
    1310 </pre><h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a id="collected.abnf" href="#collected.abnf">Collected ABNF</a></h1>
    1311       <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div> <pre class="inline"><a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = entity-tag
     1377         <div id="rfc.figure.u.17"></div><pre class="inline">  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a>     = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in <a href="#Part2" id="rfc.xref.Part2.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[Part2]</cite></a>, <a href="p2-semantics.html#http.date" title="Date/Time Formats">Section 8.1.1.1</a>&gt;
     1378</pre></div>
     1379      <div id="collected.abnf">
     1380         <h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#collected.abnf">Collected ABNF</a></h1>
     1381         <div id="rfc.figure.u.18"></div><pre class="inline"><a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">ETag</a> = entity-tag
    13121382
    13131383<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">HTTP-date</a> = &lt;HTTP-date, defined in [Part2], Section 8.1.1.1&gt;
     
    13321402
    13331403<a href="#header.etag" class="smpl">weak</a> = %x57.2F ; W/
    1334 </pre> <h1 id="rfc.section.D"><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;<a id="change.log" href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
    1335       <p id="rfc.section.D.p.1">Changes up to the first Working Group Last Call draft are summarized in &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19#appendix-C">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19#appendix-C</a>&gt;.
    1336       </p>
    1337       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.19" href="#changes.since.19">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19</a></h2>
    1338       <p id="rfc.section.D.1.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
    1339       <ul>
    1340          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241</a>&gt;: "Need to clarify eval order/interaction of conditional headers"
    1341          </li>
    1342          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/345">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/345</a>&gt;: "Required headers on 304 and 206"
    1343          </li>
    1344          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/350">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/350</a>&gt;: "Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
    1345          </li>
    1346          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/354">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/354</a>&gt;: "ETags and Conditional Requests"
    1347          </li>
    1348          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361</a>&gt;: "ABNF requirements for recipients"
    1349          </li>
    1350          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/363">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/363</a>&gt;: "Rare cases"
    1351          </li>
    1352          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/365">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/365</a>&gt;: "Conditional Request Security Considerations"
    1353          </li>
    1354          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371</a>&gt;: "If-Modified-Since lacks definition for method != GET"
    1355          </li>
    1356          <li> &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/372">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/372</a>&gt;: "refactor conditional header field descriptions"
    1357          </li>
    1358       </ul>
    1359       <h2 id="rfc.section.D.2"><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.20" href="#changes.since.20">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-20</a></h2>
    1360       <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.1"> </p>
    1361       <ul>
    1362          <li>Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are now defined in Part 1.</li>
    1363       </ul>
     1404</pre></div>
     1405      <div id="change.log">
     1406         <h1 id="rfc.section.D"><a href="#rfc.section.D">D.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#change.log">Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h1>
     1407         <p id="rfc.section.D.p.1">Changes up to the first Working Group Last Call draft are summarized in &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19#appendix-C">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19#appendix-C</a>&gt;.
     1408         </p>
     1409         <div id="changes.since.19">
     1410            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.1"><a href="#rfc.section.D.1">D.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.19">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-19</a></h2>
     1411            <p id="rfc.section.D.1.p.1">Closed issues: </p>
     1412            <ul>
     1413               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241</a>&gt;: "Need to clarify eval order/interaction of conditional headers"
     1414               </li>
     1415               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/345">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/345</a>&gt;: "Required headers on 304 and 206"
     1416               </li>
     1417               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/350">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/350</a>&gt;: "Optionality of Conditional Request Support"
     1418               </li>
     1419               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/354">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/354</a>&gt;: "ETags and Conditional Requests"
     1420               </li>
     1421               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361</a>&gt;: "ABNF requirements for recipients"
     1422               </li>
     1423               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/363">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/363</a>&gt;: "Rare cases"
     1424               </li>
     1425               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/365">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/365</a>&gt;: "Conditional Request Security Considerations"
     1426               </li>
     1427               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371</a>&gt;: "If-Modified-Since lacks definition for method != GET"
     1428               </li>
     1429               <li>&lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/372">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/372</a>&gt;: "refactor conditional header field descriptions"
     1430               </li>
     1431            </ul>
     1432         </div>
     1433         <div id="changes.since.20">
     1434            <h2 id="rfc.section.D.2"><a href="#rfc.section.D.2">D.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.20">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-20</a></h2>
     1435            <p id="rfc.section.D.2.p.1"></p>
     1436            <ul>
     1437               <li>Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are now defined in Part 1.</li>
     1438            </ul>
     1439         </div>
     1440      </div>
    13641441      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    13651442      <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.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.L">L</a> <a href="#rfc.index.M">M</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.S">S</a> <a href="#rfc.index.V">V</a>
     
    13681445         <ul class="ind">
    13691446            <li><a id="rfc.index.3" href="#rfc.index.3"><b>3</b></a><ul>
    1370                   <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.21"><b>4.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.304.1">6.1</a></li>
     1447                  <li>304 Not Modified (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.3.1"><b>4.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.304.1">6.1</a></li>
    13711448               </ul>
    13721449            </li>
    13731450            <li><a id="rfc.index.4" href="#rfc.index.4"><b>4</b></a><ul>
    1374                   <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.21"><b>4.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.412.1">6.1</a></li>
     1451                  <li>412 Precondition Failed (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.4.1"><b>4.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.412.1">6.1</a></li>
    13751452               </ul>
    13761453            </li>
     
    14641541         </ul>
    14651542      </div>
     1543      <div class="avoidbreak">
     1544         <h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1>
     1545         <p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b>
     1546            (editor)
     1547            <br>Adobe Systems Incorporated<br>345 Park Ave<br>San Jose, CA&nbsp;95110<br>USA<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>
     1548         <p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b>
     1549            (editor)
     1550            <br>greenbytes GmbH<br>Hafenweg 16<br>Muenster, NW&nbsp;48155<br>Germany<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>
     1551      </div>
    14661552   </body>
    14671553</html>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.