W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: PUT vs strong ETags

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:19:41 +0100
Message-ID: <438CC5ED.8040905@gmx.de>
To: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Scott Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:05 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> If a server like this would return an ETag upon PUT, would it apply to 
>> the PUT request body, or the server's internal representation returned 
>> in a subsequent GET?
> 
> I think that the simple rule is that when responding to a PUT, if the
> server returns an Etag, then it should be the same value that would have
> been returned in a GET of the resource that immediately followed the
> PUT.

Somebody else pointed out in the meantime that the same question applies 
to Last-Modified.

Anyway, if this is what everybody agrees upon, this IMHO should be put 
into the RFC2616 errata.

Also, it means that an ETag obtained from a PUT response can not be used 
as validator in byte-range operations, right? That may come as a 
surprise to some ;-)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 21:26:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:41 GMT