W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: ETags?

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:13:55 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF00C9D956.C1A82592-ON85256F8E.0041FFE7-85256F8E.00432F59@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Julian.  This is an existing RFC-2616 issue,
not an issue introduced by the BIND specification, since:
- RFC-2616 explicitly states that two URIs can be mapped to the same 
resource
- RFC-2616 is where entity tags are defined
Therefore whether or not two URIs that are mapped to the same resource
have the same entity tag is an existing RFC-2616 issue.

If there is current consensus on this question, then I'm OK with
adding a sentence to the bind specification about it.  But if there is
not consensus (and I suspect there is not), then I believe it makes
no sense to hold up the BIND specification because of an issue with the
etag specification in RFC-2616.

Cheers,
Geoff 

Julian wrote on 01/19/2005 03:18:38 AM:

[WRT whether or not the etag SHOULD/MUST be the same at different 
bindings]:

> That being said I do agree with the other comments Geoff made in 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0060.html> 

> -- I'm just not convinced that BIND needs to decide either way at this 
> stage of the standards process. Sometimes, when something is initially 
> submitted, being silent on a particular thing can be the right thing to 
> do. In particular, this seems to be an issue that actually affects 
> RFC2616 itself and possibly should be clarified there.
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 12:14:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT