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

Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

From: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:09:31 -0700
Message-ID: <014701c25ee2$55c8fb90$9b114498@esedlar>
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

RFC2518bis wouldn't invalidate a class of servers if it includes a new token
in the DAV: header to indicate support for RFC2518bis.  Clients would still
have to deal with no-Etag servers to support RFC2518, but this might
accellerate implementation of Etags.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting


>
> I have no objection to such a warning (in fact, it sounds
> like a good idea to me).  But I agree with Julian
> that RFC2518bis should not invalidate a whole class of
> valid 2518 servers, even for a worthy cause such as ETag support.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:eric.sedlar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:47 PM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
> As long as you don't mind a client saying something to the effect of:
>
> "This server does not support the minimal level of functionality that
> <product> requires of a WebDAV server (ETags).  We strongly discourage you
> from using this server, as you may lose work."
>
> when it points at your server, then go ahead and don't support ETags.
>
> --Eric
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
> To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:50 AM
> Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:58 AM
> > To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG
> > Subject: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM
> > > To: Webdav WG
> > > Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
> > >
> > > ...
> > > -  Be clear in spec that servers MUST do ETags. Explain how necessary
> > > this is to solve the lost update problem.
> > > ..
> >
> > ETags are a good thing, correct. However, HTTP (RFC2616) doesn't require
> > them, RFC2518 doesn't require them, and they '*aren't* required for
> > interoperability. So there's no way to require them in RFC2518bis -- it
> > would break all servers that don't have them.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 03:13:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT