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: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:27:39 -0700
Message-Id: <DF64CAE0-186D-4C8E-B822-A6826F71E533@wsanchez.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

   Not really, no.

   HTTP defines ETag.  An HTTP server should be able to use the same  
ETag logic on all HTTP resources, and not treat ETags for calendar  
resources differently than others.  Not all users of ETags are going  
to be aware that calendar resources are special.

   My concern is that if there is *any* inconsistency between the  
general solution when it comes and CalDAV's, that an implementor may  
have to choose between being compliant with CalDAV or the more  
general ETag spec, or may have to continue to implement special  
semantics on calendar resources for purposes which are better served  
by the other spec.

   I realize that "the other spec" doesn't exist today, and that this  
is a total drag.  Can't we take your one paragraph and put it into  
its own document?  I don't know IETF process very well, so I don't  
know what the next steps should be, but as an implementor, I'm  
uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with two independently  
written specifications for the same behavior.


On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special  
> ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for  
> all HTTP resources)?
Received on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 17:29:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC