On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:12:56 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:09:38 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
(But for clarity - I'm fine with what you proposed, I just wanted to
consider whether the standards would let us do it more directly,
which
they -nearly- do AFAICT).
-Rob
Same. I don't mind this type of extension ...BUT...
I think fixing bug 2112 (lack of If-None-Match support) and bug 2617
(wrong ETag validation handling) should be done first before any
extensions are tried. That will allow you to see who much of a
problem
(or not) the potential failure cases actually are in practice.
Amos
Want-Digest: and Digest: validation mechanism from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3230 covers the remainder of the proposal.
So no custom extensions needed to meet all the requirements.
Amos
