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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:15:19 +0200
To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEAKFGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Eric,

if RFC2518bis requires ETag support, old, otherwise RFC2518-compliant and
non-ETag-supporting servers will not be compliant to RFC2518bis. So
something that was fully compliant before, isn't in the with the revision. I
don't think this is allowed at this publication stage.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:04 PM
> To: Stefan Eissing
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
>
> I still don't see how if RFC2518bis requires ETag support it would
> invalidate existing servers.  Clients will continue to support ETag-less
> servers to support an older version of the WebDAV spec, until ETag-less
> servers are phased out.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
> To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
> Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
> >
> > Am Mittwoch den, 18. September 2002, um 09:09, schrieb Eric Sedlar:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > But support for ETag on a resource is visible on the getETag Property.
> > What better place to look for ETag support than there?
> >
> > //Stefan
> >
> >
> > > --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 14:15:52 GMT

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