- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:18:20 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
> Jim's draft summarizes the various issues Looking through this for the issues, this is what I come up with: It looks like the HTTP spec doesn't say enough about ETag headers in 200 and 204 responses to PUT. And there is a question, when a HTTP server accepts a PUT but will modify the octet stream before a subsequent GET of whether it can return a strong ETag (presumably for the data it has, not for what was sent). But doing so wouldn’t be useful -- the client stored something, but gets back a strong etag for data that it doesn't have. So, I'd suggest a couple of things: (a) any server response for a successful PUT may contain an ETag header (200 and 204 as well as 201). (b) If a strong ETag is returned, then the client can assume that the data was stored exactly as sent. (c) If the server modifies the data before storing it in a way that it cannot guarantee a byte-for-byte copy in a subsequent GET, it shouldn't use strong eTags. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 23:19:12 UTC