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

Re: weak etags vs PATCH, was: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:39:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4ADCB248.8090800@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Recommending the use of timestamps instead a potentially available weak etag
>> simple does not make sense. After all, the server is minting the etags, and
>> it also controls what it accepts in conditional PATCH requests. Let it
>> decide what's right.
> It looks to me like RFC2616 forbids this even if the server could
> figure out what's right.
> Section 14.26 says "The weak comparison function can only be used with
> GET or HEAD requests."  So in a PATCH, we'd have to use strong
> comparison.

We fixed this in HTTPbis (see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116>), and 
furthermore, WebDAV's "If" header never had that limitation.

So my proposal would be to stay silent on this, and let the base spec 
define it.

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 18:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC