Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (5236)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:37:57 +0200

On 2018-01-29 02:00, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> FWIW, I think the source of confusion here is taking this statement out of context:
> 
> """However, if a resource has distinct representations that differ only in their metadata, such as might occur with content negotiation over media types that happen to share the same data format, then the origin server needs to incorporate additional information in the validator to distinguish those representations."""
> 
> The complete paragraph is:
> 
> """There are a variety of strong validators used in practice. The best are based on strict revision control, wherein each change to a representation always results in a unique node name and revision identifier being assigned before the representation is made accessible to GET. A collision-resistant hash function applied to the representation data is also sufficient if the data is available prior to the response header fields being sent and the digest does not need to be recalculated every time a validation request is received. However, if a resource has distinct representations that differ only in their metadata, such as might occur with content negotiation over media types that happen to share the same data format, then the origin server needs to incorporate additional information in the validator to distinguish those representations."""
> 
> I.e., the statement is being made in the context of generating strong validators based only upon the message body, when the headers might also change.
> 
> Cheers,

So, are we in agreement that this erratum should be rejected?

Best regards, Julian