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 10:12:24 +0100
Message-ID: <43A7CAF8.4050206@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> ...
> So unless we are going to disallow servers from modifying the
> content stored from a PUT (note that our server does not do this,
> so I am speaking as a neutral party here :-), we pretty much
> have to have PUT return the entity tag of the content that was
> PUT, not what would be returned by the GET.
> ...

As a meta comment:

I note here's another experienced person who interprets ETag-upon-PUT 
differently than people on the HTTP mailing list. *If* RFC2518bis wants 
to make normative statements about ETags in PUT, it MUST resolve this 
issue, and in a way that won't conflict with future revisions of RFC2616.

At this point I firmly believe that we can't deliver RFC2518bis in time, 
unless we drop all changes introducing new requirements that are 
non-controversial.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 09:14:47 GMT

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