W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: 54th IETF Meeting Information, and RFC2518 open issues

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:53:34 +0200
Cc: "Webdav WG (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>
Message-Id: <7BBFC815-5611-11D6-9959-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

Am Montag den, 22. April 2002, um 18:36, schrieb Lisa Dusseault:

> [...]
>
> To bring our "agenda" up-to-date, here's what I think the largest and
> hardest issues are for RFC2518 bis:
>  - Whether/how to change the If header rules and syntax
>  - Whether/how to change the source property definition
>
> Although the If header has been shown to be interoperable in its 
> simplest
> form with locktokens, it hasn't been shown to be interoperable in 
> its more
> advanced forms or with ETags.  The source property has not had any
> demonstrated interoperability to my knowledge.

If headers with ETags do not add any value to the protocol. For
GET rfc2616 already defines If-Match and friends. Since the ETag
only captures content changes (property changes have undefined
effect on ETags), IF headers for ETag lack a use case.

Having never encountered a client using them, I propose to
drop ETags in IF headers.

The remaining "more advanced" features of IF I can think of are:
- not
- use of URIs with locktokens

URIs with locktokens are in use by us (both server and client).

Does anyone have a use case for "Not"?

//Stefan
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 12:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:00 GMT