- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:39:02 -0400
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Stefan,
Greg's posting didn't point out anything that can't be done without the
ETag support in the IF: header. That's why he ended his posting with:
> Arguably, the semantic could be manufactured with other combinations, but
> I'd suggest that is your use case.
If you know of another case that he told you about off line, please share
it.
If anyone actually knows of a client that actually uses the IF: etag
feature, then please point it out.
J.
------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Stefan Eissing
<stefan.eissing@gre To: Jason Crawford/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
enbytes.de> cc: "'Webdav WG (E-mail)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: 54th IETF Meeting Information, and RFC2518 open issues
w3c-dist-auth-reque
st@w3.org
04/25/2002 01:14 PM
Am Donnerstag den, 25. April 2002, um 17:38, schrieb Jason Crawford:
>
>>>> Having never encountered a client using them, I propose to
>>>> drop ETags in IF headers.
>>>
>>> OK; if we drop ETags in If headers how are servers intended to handle
>>> requests using the old syntax, or do you believe that is not an
>>> issue (if
>>> so, why)?
>>
>> We can handle this similar to the "keepalive" body for COPY requests.
>
> Obviously if no clients use it, it's not a big issue, but please
> explain
> further.
As I wrote earlier today, Greg changed my mind on this matter.
There is a use case which cannot be covered by existing HTTP features.
So I'd vote for keeping the If: header as it is.
//Stefan
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 15:48:36 UTC