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

Re: Etag-on-write, 4rd attempt (== IETF draft 03), was: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-03.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:01:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4550ADF5.3070902@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom schrieb:
> mån 2006-11-06 klockan 20:35 +0100 skrev Helge Hess:
> 
>> However, if this is insane, don't we need to extend if-match to allow  
>> for weak etags? That is, remove this sentence in rfc2616 14.24:
>>    A server MUST use the strong comparison function (see section 13.3.3)
>>    to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
> 
> Which in itself is a rather stupid restriction in RFC2616, especially if
> considering that "If-Match: *" and "If-Unmodified-Since" is allowed
> which both are very weak match conditions.
> 
> The fact that weak etags is forbidden in If-Range is quite natural as
> range merging is very dependent on octal equivalence, but the reasoning
> of the other specified limitations of weak etags is not so easy to
> understand and seriously limits the usability of weak etags which
> despite their weak property is still stronger than Last-Modified (weak
> etags guarantee semantic equivalence, which Last-Modified doesn't).

Actually, a workaround is to use the WebDAV "If" header instead; see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.html#rfc.section.10.4.4>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 16:02:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT