W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: PATCH and ETags

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:30:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4A334777.8050705@gmx.de>
To: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Pablo Castro wrote:
> At was looking the current draft of PATCH (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-http-patch-14) and noticed that it currently discusses conflicts only in the context of strong ETags:
> 
> "Clients wishing to apply a patch document to a known entity can first acquire the strong ETag of the resource to be modified, and use that Etag in the If-Match header on the PATCH request to verify that the resource is still unchanged.  If a strong ETag is not available for a given resource, the client can use If-Unmodified-Since as a less-reliable safeguard."
> ...

Agreed. We discussed this several times; I think the last thread starts 
with 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2009JanMar/0140.html>.

> Given the update that went into HTTPbis last year around allowing weak ETags on PUT/DELETE [1], shouldn't this spec also allow weak ETags on PATCH? I understand that the sentence above doesn't say that clients MUST use strong ETags, but the way it's spelled out certainly pushes in that direction.

Actually, the PATCH spec should be silent on that issue.

> Thanks
> -pablo
> 
> [1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/116/i116.diff

BTW: this change has been made in draft -03.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 06:30:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT