http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|-09 |-10 ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 2006-01-15 06:13 ------- I have followed up on last year's thread on the HTTP WG mailing list, see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006JanMar/0000.html>. That being said, in case we don't get a consensus over there, I think normative language about PUT vs ETags needs to be removed from RFC2518bis. I've done that in my version of the draft (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.bz013>). I'd like to delay a discussion about PROPPATCH vs ETags until the PUT question is clarified (in which case I think consequences for PROPPATCH will be obvious). Finally, I'd like to point out that draft 10 of RFC2518bis and draft 09 of CalDAV (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-09.html#rfc.section.5.3.3>) have conflicting normative requirements, which really should tell us something. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.Received on Sunday, 15 January 2006 14:13:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:25 GMT