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: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:12:09 +0100
Message-ID: <438D6CE9.6010409@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Having a PUT response include an e-tag associated with the current
> entity is necessary in order to avoid the lost update problem (see [1]).
> I don't think this is a redefinition of the use of e-tags: section
> 10.2.2 states that
> 
> "A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating the
> current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just created,
> see section 14.19."

Good point, I wasn't aware of that part. But this is for creating 
resources (PUT -> 201), what about updating (PUT -> 200)???

> The use of the term "requested variant" is consistent with the use in
> section 14.19 and elsewhere in the spec. It refers to the resource
> identified by the request URI regardless of the method used.

Now that's certainly not obvious, and it would be nice if this would 
appear somewhere in the errata.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 09:13:35 GMT

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