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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:11:02 -0800
Message-Id: <CE46B9D4-F74D-4843-81A6-C783F482A78C@cs.ucsc.edu>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>



Thanks for making this more clear -- you're right, there is a  
significant 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.

I think option #2 is the best one here (the Etag returned by PUT is  
the one a subsequent GET would retrieve).

- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 02:11:34 UTC

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