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

Re: ETags and concurrency control

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:59:21 +0200
Message-ID: <481B2C49.6000406@gmx.de>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, 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>

Mark Baker wrote:
> ...
>>  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.
> ...


In particular, it would be sufficient to *allow* servers to support weak 
entity tags in these cases. This change wouldn't break (IMHO) any 
existing compliant HTTP/1.1 client/server.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 15:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC