W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: ETags and concurrency control

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:30:53 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640805012030n37fe870enea9e17a48dbbc354@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: "Robert Siemer" <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>, "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>, "Pablo Castro" <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, atom-protocol@imc.org, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Nordstrom
<henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
>
>  On mån, 2008-04-28 at 13:44 +0200, Robert Siemer wrote:
>
>  > That raises three issues:
>  >
>  > 1) It's not in RFC2616 (weak comparison for non-GET) and so it's not on
>  >    RFC2616bis charta.
>
>  Not convinced. The current limitations on weak etags is just silly with
>  the exception of If-Range..
>
>  In my view it's a specification error that validators based on
>  Last-Modified is allowed in more places than weak etag based ones.

Well said.  The meaning of any non-range conditional request message
using a weak validator is unambiguous.

So would this be a "clarify conformance criteria" fix per the charter?
 Those MUST NOTs seem to make no sense AFAICT, unless there's
implementation issues I'm not aware of.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 03:31:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT