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 09:03:55 +0100
Message-ID: <43A7BAEB.9010404@gmx.de>
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Jim Whitehead wrote:
> Julian,
> 
> 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).

So given the fact people like Ted and myself got this wrong, and that 
people on the HTTP WG seem to agree this area is underspecified, what do 
we do?

-1 on putting in new requirements into the spec that may be incompatible 
with RFC2616. +1 on getting that clarified in RFC2616's errata. Volunteers?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 08:06:33 GMT

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