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: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:28:52 +0100
Message-ID: <43A74234.6020501@gmx.de>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 12:09 AM +0100 12/20/05, Yves Lafon wrote:
>>
>> 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...
> 
> Are these property changes, or changes to the entity itself?  If to the entity, how does a get-range work?

My interpretation is that a GET/Range will not work, that is, a client 
which obtained an ETag upon PUT will have to *know* that the content may 
have been rewritten before the ETag as assigned.

This is exactly why I'm keep telling people that we need to decide what 
the ETag means, and also make sure that what we're saying is the same 
thing that RFC2616bis is going to say (should it ever become reality).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 23:30:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT