W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

[Bug 13] new ETag requirements

From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:13:01 -0800
Message-Id: <200601151413.k0FED1x9002751@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

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 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT