Re: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-00.txt

On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Personally, I think that we really need a very minor clarification,  
> plus a simple new feature to help clients that want to avoid a re- 
> fetch after sending the content. I therefore decided to write up my  
> own draft. It summarizes the situation (as RFC2616 is concerned),  
> proposes one clarification to RFC2616 (as mentioned in <http:// 
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006JanMar/0003.html>),  
> and also proposes that minor new feature (a new response header).

No thanks.  A new response header will just be interpreted as an entity
header.  The easier solution is to simply require that ETag in a  
response
to PUT means that the client can use that entity tag in future  
conditional
requests.  How the server manages to accomplish that feat if it isn't
storing things octet-for-octet is none of your business.

Note that this will solve your problem without requiring that the server
become a filesystem, and is also consistent with XCAP (even though XCAP
is a really bad use of HTTP).  In spite of the overspecification in  
CALDAV,
the implementation will work fine as well for the above case.

....Roy