If-Match and 428

[mnot@…]

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").

[julian.reschke@…]

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.

[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

[mnot@…]

What's so bad about referencing another RFC?

[fielding@…]

Can we just import the new codes at this point? We have to recycle at Proposed anyway.

[mnot@…]

As far as I know. Julian, any problem with that?

[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?

[mnot@…]

If you like.