W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: [Ietf-caldav] Last Call comment on Etag requirements in draft-dusseault-caldav-12

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:41:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4496FDDD.8010405@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Lisa Dusseault schrieb:
> 
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
> 
>>   I agree with Julian.
>>
>>   As we've mentioned before, Apache returns a weak ETag on PUT, which 
>> turns into a strong ETag sometime later.  If clients rely on being 
>> able to use that ETag on a GET later, they won't work with Apache, and 
>> IIRC, Apache is pretty popular.
>>
>>   The ETag requirements in the draft are what many clients authors 
>> might *like* to be the common case, but it is most certainly not so 
>> today.
> 
> It's worse than that; many client authors *assumed* that to be the case, 
> and implemented and deployed their clients assuming that if the client 
> receives a strong ETag in response to a PUT, it has no further work to 
> do to synchronize that resource.  So the deployed base says that *is* 
> the case today.  I don't feel our document makes this situation any 
> worse than the deployed base of clients already does.
> 
> Lisa

Again: do you have any evidence of *shipping* clients making that 
assumption?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 19:41:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:44 GMT