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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:42:35 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEEA1ED99.56F81871-ON852570DD.0070F649-852570DD.0071C367@us.ibm.com>
Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote on 12/20/2005 11:58:01 

>    b) GET(PUT(edit(x,z)) != GET(PUT(edit(GET(PUT(x)),z))
>       In this case the server modifies the content of a PUT in a way 
> which somewhat random or for example counting the number of 
> modifications inside the content.
> Case b) seems to be what you mean with "substantive" changes. My 
> interpretation would be that the server shall either be silent with 
> regards to ETAG on the PUT response. And that a client which does not 
> see an ETAG in a PUT response, should make a GET afterwards. If it 
> wants to avoid concurrent updates, it could lock the resource just for 
> the PUT with subsequent GET.

If the server includes the etag corresponding to the PUT content, 
standard If-Match and If-None-Match processing works properly. 
Isn't supporting the standard semantics better than hoping clients will
interpret the absence of an etag header in a certain way? 

Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:43:06 UTC

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