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: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:07:00 +0100
Message-ID: <43A97DA4.5080105@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 12/21/2005 10:02:23 AM:
> 
>  > Dan Brotsky wrote:
> 
>  > > I believe all of these things that clients want are accomplished with
>  > > what we have, as long as we have servers hand back strong etags on PUT.
>  >
>  > 1) Servers may not be able to return strong ETags upon PUT. Again, let's
>  > consider adding an indicator to PUT that let's the server know the
>  > client really needs a strong ETag, so that the server can optimize it's
>  > behavior for that case.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>  > 2) It seems to me that we can't rule out that servers touch the ETag
>  > upon PROPPATCH (for instance, because they are indeed updating metadata
>  > in the file content, such as with XMP). In which case telling the server
>  > to return the new ETag upon PUT seems to be a very good idea.
> 
> Did you mean, return the new ETag upon PROPPATCH?

Yep. Thanks for the correction :-)
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 16:09:09 GMT

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