W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Summary of If header eval tests

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:37:17 +0100
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMECFGGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 5:56 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: Summary of If header eval tests
>
>
>
> Julian it's great that you've done this research. It helps to get some
> real data into our planning!

Thanks.

> > So contrary to what we believed, protecting conditional PUTs using
strong
> > etags currently does not interoperate well at all.
> >
> > How do we move forward on this issue?
>
> I'm not sure.  Here's my guess:
>  - Decide that preventing lost updates is actually important

I don't think we need to decide that :-)

>  - Decide that strong ETags is the only way to do that effectively

...the best...

>  - Exhort server implementors to do a better job of Etags and If header
>  - Put the tests in Litmus -- which I understand you're already doing --
> and announce

Nope, I'm currently not doing it. Joe Orton, are you listening?

>  - Hold another interoperability event where we record the results of
> this effort
>
> That holds back draft standard until we can hold another interop event,
> but if we hold another summer interop as we have the last two years,
> draft standard would probably take that long anyway.
>
> Any other ideas?

I think it's sufficient to add the test cases to Litmus and make sure that
clients submit correct If headers. This can be tested without a specific
face-to-face meeting...

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 07:37:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT