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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:50:30 +0100
Message-ID: <43A73936.6020806@gmx.de>
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Jim Whitehead wrote:
> I'd like clarification as well.
> It's fine for WebDAV to place additional requirements on base HTTP 
> servers. I don't see anything in the definition of PUT or of the Etag 
> header that would prevent Etag being returned by PUT.

That's not the issue here.

The question here is whether an ETag returned upon PUT is for the entity 
the client sent (1), or for the entity the server would send upon a 
subsequent GET (2).

There are cases where both will not be the same, so this needs to be 
clarified. In case of (2), a client will need a subsequent GET if it's 
planning to use the ETag for subsequent GET/Range requests.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 22:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:34 UTC