Re: ETags?

Brian Korver wrote:

> Right, that's what I believe it says too, but I think that may be
> counter-intuitive for some implementers -- who may in fact miss
> this text in 3.11 and to implement expecting that they can assume
> it's the same entity.
> ...

I'm not sure why implementers who are going to miss a specific section 
in RFC2616 aren't going to miss other important sections in RFC2616, 
RFC2518 or BIND as well -- so I don't buy that as reason to repeat 
something that another spec (normatively referenced) already says.

Have you actually *seen* implementers make that mistake? In which case a 
request for clarification should be added to the RFC2616 errata list.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 01:30:44 UTC