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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:09:12 +0100 (MET)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0512192358180.14@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> 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).


My implementation returns the ETag that asubsequent GET would see, so 
option (2). Ans I am in the case where the PUT entity and the served 
entity will not be the same, as there are CVS actions done during the PUT, 
so possible keyword extensions, etc...

> 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
>
>

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 23:09:53 GMT

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