#427 closed editorial (incorporated)
If-Match and 428
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 22 |
Component: | p4-conditional | Severity: | In WG Last Call |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
3.1 If-Match says:
If the request would, without the If-Match header field, result in anything other than a 2xx (Successful) or 412 (Precondition Failed) status code, then the If-Match header field must be ignored.
However, this doesn't account for the 428 Precondition Required status code (depending on your definition of "ignored").
Change History (8)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
From [2128]:
Define time of evaluation along with precedence; remove more duplicate and conflicting requirements revealed by the addition of 428 (Precondition Required); reduce requirements targeting entity-tag to facts; clarify that servers only need to send validators on successful retrieval responses; addresses #350 and #427
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 22
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
What's so bad about referencing another RFC?
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
Can we just import the new codes at this point? We have to recycle at Proposed anyway.
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
As far as I know. Julian, any problem with that?
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
No actual problem.
For 428 it would have been nice if the spec was phrased in a way that the new status code can be added without actually changing the base spec.
I assume we'd include 308 as well then?
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by mnot@…
If you like.
Any proposal how to rephrase this without having to mention the new status code specifically?
Also this applies to similar text in other conditional header field descriptions.