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

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:19:24 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060303111728.09199410@localhost>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, discuss@apps.ietf.org

A very tiny adjustment below. But since HTTP (RFC 2616) is still
at Draft Standard, couldn't this kind of clarification be added
in when going to Standard? Or is that the plan?

At 08:18 06/03/03, Larry Masinter wrote:

 >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.

I think that should read "If a strong ETag is returned, then the client can
assume that the data will subsequently be served exactly as sent."

How the data is stored is purely the server's business
(and (c) uses the right language).

Regards,    Martin.

 >(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. 
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 05:27:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:42 GMT