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: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:59:32 -0700
Message-Id: <DEACB9F1-7D91-4AB0-9599-393DC909719D@osafoundation.org>
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: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>

On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

>   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.

We basically tried that.  What it turned into was this <http:// 
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt> with  
no consensus on the basic model or apparent drive to come to  
consensus.  Got any feedback on that draft?


> 	-wsv
> 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 23:59:40 UTC

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