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

Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:40:10 -0800
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, <w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFAB652A.620EC%fluffy@cisco.com>

So the usual IETF thought pattern around profiles is say we have might have
profile A and B. Are their clients that want both? Are there reasons a
server would only support one? How will this negation and if a server only
does A and a client wants B, what will the interoperation be like?


On 11/24/05 10:20 AM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> I agree with this proposal.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Geoff 
> 
> Julian wrote on 11/24/2005 08:31:14 AM:
> 
>> > So what I would propose is to
>> > 
>> > a) agree on a certain set of server features that those clients expect
>> > (strong ETag on PUT, octet-for-octet identity of representations, ...),
>> then
>> > 
>> > b) define a profile for WebDAV that covers this, and a simple way for
>> > clients to discover whether any given resource supports this.
>> > 
>> > IMHO this definition should go into a separate document. This will also
>> >   reduce the amount of open issues on RFC2518bis for now.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 20:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT