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: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:26:51 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB6B4D535.63DAA71A-ON852570DE.005A1388-852570DE.005A5956@us.ibm.com>
Julian wrote on 12/21/2005 09:54:11 AM:
> Dan Brotsky wrote:
> > As to your last question: Yes it's OK and no the server needs to break
> > the lock if it does this (because it's indistinguishable from another
> > client's edit).  Not all clients will work efficiently against servers
> > that unexpectedly munge data after PUTs are complete but  that's life.
> For the record: I think that linking the ETag behavior for PUT to the 
> fact whether the resource was locked or not would be a really bad idea.

Julian: I agree with you, but did you think Dan was suggesting otherwise,
or were you just agreeing with Dan's statement (or at least, with the
"yes, it's OK" part)?   I am assuming that you were not disagreeing
with Dan, since I don't believe he suggests anything that would make ETag
behavior depend on whether the resource was locked or not.

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 16:26:58 UTC

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